House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (8)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1419
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1419”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1045
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1045”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1245
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1245”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1281
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…he is, Representative Patterson. Great. You're here to run House Bill 1281.”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1386
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1386”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1406
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1406”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1408
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1408”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB4
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB4”
|
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
But out of respect for Mrs. Hopper, we don't want to go too much into that time if we don't have to. So let's see if we can't get some things taken care of real quickly. Representative Edwards, without objection, I'm going to
take some of these out of order. Well, where did Representative Edwards go? Okay. Representative Patterson, where did he go? Oh, there he is, Representative Patterson. Great. You're here to run House Bill 1281.
Is that correct? Okay. Well, why don't we do 1419? I'm sorry. Let's see if we can get you in and out and back to your committee. Thank you. Mr. Patterson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you don't
Speaker 3
0:41
mind, I'd like to call Mr. John Feltz up here. Right ahead. Sit here with me, please. I'll let him introduce himself. Mr. Phillips, please introduce yourself and tell us who you're with.
Speaker 7
0:55
Yes, my name is John Feltz. I'm a commissioner on the State Parole Board.
Speaker 3
1:00
Mr. Chairman, on this House Bill 1419, an act to establish a waiting period of 10 years after the date of denial of an application for executive clemency for persons sentenced to life in prison without parole to file a new application for executive clemency and for other purposes. Basically, what we did on this bill here, It's six years before they can apply, and I'm changing that six to ten. That's the only thing that I'm changing throughout the whole bill.
It's a number change from six years to ten years. And the reason I'm doing this, instead of every six years that these families have to come back and bring this all out in front of them, now they can go for ten years before they have to come back and bring up the bad things that have happened to them. So with that, if you don't mind, I'm open for questions. Thank you for
your presentation, Mr. Patterson. We do have a question from Representative Gillum, I believe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Tommy Lee Baker
Unverified
2:02
Representative Patterson, what is the, I guess, the frequency of occurrence on this right now? Is this happening frequent enough, I guess, to be a problem? There's 566
Speaker 3
2:14
people today that's life without parole. And they get to come up every six years. And with as many people as we have in the prison system now, anything we can do to kind of cut their workload, I think it's a good thing to do.
Thank you, sir. Appreciate it. No further questions. Representative Walker, you're recognized
for a question. Well, in all due respect, I don't think you answered his question. The question is, what
is the frequency of clemency applications now? What is that frequency? Yes,
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
2:49
Representative Walker. We probably average... First of all, do you know? I don't want to guess.
Right, right. Do you know? No, sir. We do not know right now. Now, don't you think
that in order to tamper with the law as it is,
it has to first be shown not to be working and to be creating or presenting some special problem other than to cause some people other than to just please somebody
no sir Mr. Walker I disagree with you on that
Speaker 3
3:22
I'm thinking about the people back home that had their daughters and their children killed and their wives killed and their moms and dads from these people that's sitting down there and there were six years they had to come down there and tell people why they want to keep them in there,
and they're going to tell you why they want out. So I'm trying to postpone it to 10 years, and I don't think there's a
thing wrong with it at all. But it's not a question about it being a thing wrong with it. The question is, first of all, how often does this happen? You can't tell me how often it happens. You can't tell me how many people have been harmed by it. It's esoteric right now more than anything else. And I'm concerned also with keeping people in prison. You don't get a lot of clemencies. I mean, the governor doesn't grant a lot of poisons, does he? No governor.
Just a moment. Does he, Mr. Phelps? Yes, sir, Mr. Walker. For people who are long-term offenders who have committed capital offenses. Right. And the answer to
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
4:24
that is, of the 13 years I've been on the board, we've not had a governor commute a life without. However, again, going along with Mr. Patterson, and the point that he raises is even though those are not granted,
every time that a life without inmate files for clemency, a notice goes out, and again, it's brought back up each time. Whether they actually come in front of us or not, that is something that they have to go through, and it is difficult for them. Now, you're on the parole board? Yes, sir,
that is fine. All right. Now, that means they
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
5:02
come before you first, doesn't it? Well, actually, sir, the way that that occurs is that an inmate that's serving a life without sentence, which this law applies to, would fill out an application.
Notices would go out, again, to all the officials, the victims. They would actually get a copy of the application. And in turn, a file is compiled, and we do what we call a screening. And in that screening, we make the determination at that time whether or not a hearing should be granted based on the information we have in that application. Well, I understand
what you do. But, I mean, the people come before you and you have hearings. And you all at least have a way of keeping a statistical compilation of the people who come before you for this.
And I guess it's always reported in the paper. And from my reading the paper, of course, I don't know about the accuracy of the paper, but it doesn't seem that there are more than four or five
Speaker 30
6:04
of those a year. Well, sir, I would say this, that it would be more than four or five that
apply. But I'm saying that actually come before you in
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
6:13
a publicized. There doesn't seem to be many. And I understand what you're saying there. And, again, my statement there would be this. They don't have to come in front of us for the families, the victims' families, to be notified.
Anybody that fills out an application where there are victims involved or victims' families involved, they're going to get that notice, they're going to get that application that the inmate
is applying. Well, here's another concern. Pardon me. There are different reasons for seeking commutation. Yes, sir. Is one of those
reasons the health of the person seeking the commutation? Yes, sir, there is. All right, so if you have a person who's terminal within two or three years,
must that person wait 10 years after being? No,
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
7:03
sir. Actually, if they are terminal, if they've been diagnosed by two different doctors, and that doesn't apply in this legislation here, a person can apply for Act 290, which is for those individuals that are terminally ill and, again, diagnose the prognosis is not greater than 12 months, they can apply and come before the board as a release like that.
Well, what about the situation where DNA has disclosed that there
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
7:36
is a material question? Right. One thing that I was talking to Representative Patterson about is that in the executive clemency process, back about four years ago, I believe it was, there was a waiver that the board has the right to grant. If something comes back up where, you know, there's extenuary circumstance, something's changed, DNA, whatever it may be,
that would make the board take a look at that, then the board can waive that time period.
And I guess my final question is, since you
moved it from 6 to 10, Then why not 6 to 20? I mean, it's sort of arbitrary. That would be fine.
Speaker 3
8:19
I'd be more than happy to move 6 to 20. Well, I
understand. I didn't think that would happen. But must not our actions as legislators be based on something other than arbitrariness and won't when there's no expressed demonstrated need to change the preexisting status quo?
Speaker 3
8:37
No, one of the things that got me started on this was you're one of the first people that they're going to contact to try to get a letter saying keep this man in jail. And so they have to contact, they contact their legislators, they contact their judges, they contact their sheriffs back home and several people and open this thing wide open every time, every six years. And that's why even though they know that they might not get out, they still got to do this in their own mind to do the right thing
to try to keep those people in there. So that's why I think it's a good deal to move it from six years to ten years where they don't have to do this
as often. Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Mr. Ratliff, you recognize for a question? The intent
Speaker 47
9:26
of this, Representative Patterson, is to help the families for them not to come down and go through that horrific thing over and over and
Speaker 3
9:35
over. That's correct. And I couldn't, I don't even want to start telling you what happened to some of the families.
But that's what it's all about. I have a motion, when appropriate. Mr. Ratliff, Mr. Hammer, are you recognized for a question? My question is going to ask. Thank you. Anyone else on the committee have
a question? Anyone in the audience want to speak for or against this bill? For or against? Please go to the podium and state your
Speaker 56
10:08
name and who you're with. Jeff Rosenzweig, Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
Speaker 57
10:12
Number one, commutations of life without parole sentences are essentially nonexistent. Secondly, if the family, they now have the technology, so if the family doesn't have to come down anymore, they can record, the parole board can record or they can videotape There are objections to be presented in perpetuity for after they're unable to come down. Thirdly, though, and most importantly, as indicated, there are, what, 600-and-something people doing life without parole.
In order to run a safe prison, you need to be able to have a carrot out there for good behavior. And if you tell anything that tells a person, no matter what you do, no matter how well you behave, we're not going to let you out, we're not going to consider letting you out, is one less carrot you have for good behavior. And to be able to hold out the possibility or the ability to apply for clemency after six years is more of a carrot
than after 10 years or 20 years or something else. It is merely, do I have the right to send in a letter? Do I have the right to fill out a form? And that's all you're talking about. And I think that, you know, to run the prison properly, I think you need to be able to give these people some sliver of hope, which you're taking away by passing this bill. Thanks, Mr. Rosaswegg. I believe we have a question.
Speaker 60
11:55
But I have a question for Mr. Rosenzweig.
Mr. Walker, I think Mr. Powers has a
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
12:03
question first. Thank you. Mr. Rosenzweig, do you have any idea, you may or may not know this, how long that
Speaker 57
12:11
six years has been in place in this statute? My recollection is it was raised from four a number of several sessions ago, And I think before then, at one point, there was not any time limitation, but it was at one point put in as four, and then it was raised to six,
and now here's an attempt to raise it
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
12:35
to ten. Well, can I ask Representative Patterson this question because it's kind of going through my mind. Representative Patterson, did you raise this our first legislative session? Four years ago, this was raised
Speaker 66
12:45
from four years to six years, and yes, sir, I did raise it. Okay, all right.
That answers my question. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Powers. Mr. Walker, you recognize for our question?
Thank you, Mr. Chair. The views that you express, have you discussed those with the people who run the prisons?
Speaker 57
13:04
You're talking about me? Yes. You're talking about me? Not on this specific bill, but, yes, over the years I have, you know, informal chats with, you know, with the prison people, and I certainly don't want to speak for them, but I think they would agree that if you have a reward for good behavior out there, that makes the prisons safer and less riotous. Are
there other rewards for good behavior preexisting at this time?
Speaker 57
13:37
Yeah. Well, number one, you get meritorious good time, time, except life without parole people don't get meritorious good time. They don't calculate that. Secondly, of course, someone doing life without parole is restricted in generally in what programs he can go to, what he can do, where he can be, you know, what level of security he is, that type of thing. MR.
Do those people interact with the other population? MR. Yes. So they can interact in such a way if they are hopeless so as to cause other people to
Speaker 57
14:13
engage in misconduct. MR. Certainly that's a possibility, since everyone down there is deemed by the courts to
have engaged in some misconduct in the past, sir. MR. Well, I understand. But then this can cause for those people who engage in misconduct because of the futility
of the situation to, in turn, cause those people who do so to have longer prison terms themselves. MR. That's possible. Yes, sir. MR.
So we could be increasing not only the duration of prison
but even the offenses that may occur to those people who interact with those prisoners who
Speaker 57
14:53
are hopeless. MR. Yes, sir. That is a possibility because they might lose their meritorious good time and have to to serve
more time, even if no new offense were
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
15:05
committed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Mr. Powers, you recognize again for? Just a little bit of a follow-up to my previous question, and I'm certain you'll have an idea, Mr. Rosenzweig. I'm sure that other states the process is similar as far as executive clemency.
Is there a standard or norm with other states in regarding this particular piece of legislation? Or just do you know of any other states what
Speaker 57
15:33
theirs might be? You know, I haven't done a study of it because each state is different because of the various politics around. I know in Florida it goes not to the governor but the entire cabinet of elected executive officials. In some states, there is a permission to apply for release after 25 years, 30 years, that
type of thing. I couldn't, and of course, these things get changed every year or two in each legislature anyway. So I don't think there's any way to generalize, at least I don't have that knowledge base to speak about what all other states do. MR. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker 81
16:19
Powers. MR. Thank you. MR. Thank you. MR. Thank you, Mr.
Powers. MR. Yes, I am. MR. Thank
you, Mr. Powers. Mr. Nichols, you recognize for a question? MR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This may be directed at you, but since we've talked about the Department of Corrections and life inside the prisons, I'd like to hear what the Department of Corrections has to say about
Speaker 85
16:42
this bill. MR. You think it's directed at me? I think
you can sum the Department of Corrections, but I don't think Mr. Rosenzweig can. Well, no, I don't think
you can speak for the Department of Corrections. But is there anyone here from the Department of
Corrections? Would you like to come and identify yourself for us and maybe speak toward the issues that
Mr. Rosenzweig has talked about? I'm Dr. Mary
Representative Mike Patterson
Unverified
17:09
Parker. I'm Dr. Mary Parker. I sit on the Board of Corrections, and I'm happy to be here, but didn't intend to be here for this. So, Mr. Patterson, I'm not speaking against your bill in any way. From the Board of Corrections, most of you understand we're the board that governs both the Department of Corrections and the Department of Community Corrections. So we're ultimately responsible for everything that happens within our prison system and also adult probation and parole.
So from Mr. Patterson's perspective, I can and we can fully understand the impact on the victims, obviously. Having to come down to Little Rock or having to relive a violent event, which these always are, every four, six, ten years, every 20 years, you know, can be devastating on a family. So please understand our respect for his intent and our understanding of your passage if you choose to pass this bill out of committee.
But what you asked me to address is the correctional side, so let me do a little bit of that. Mr. Powers, to answer your question, you really can't compare states because every state is different. Some states' life or life without parole is actually translated in law to a number of years. So a life sentence is equal to 50 years. You know, in some states, parole boards have the power to do the executive clemency. It actually, you know, is left – the governor delegates it to a board to do that for him.
In other states, of course, like Arkansas, it's a recommendation from the board to the governor, and then the governor retains that authority. So it's really – this is probably one of the most difficult concepts to do – to try to do a comparison on Because you're just not going to find any consistency in time length of when you can do it. To Mr. Walker's question, which are good questions and are legitimate questions, this is a population of, if you count life without parole and life, which for us is the same, unless there is some kind of commutation or clemency granted, you've got about 1,000 inmates in the Department of Corrections that we don't have a lot of rewards for.
They don't get good time. Because we call them word sentences, and word sentences don't get good time. So his questions are absolutely relevant to the issue of hope for that population and to the issue of theoretically, because they don't have any hope, do they have the potential to cause other inmates problems who do get good time? And remember that prison is a total mix of the human dynamics.
So you've got every personality, you know, you've got every indication of every individual out there. So that is a concern for us. It's always a concern for us with that population, regardless of Mr. Patterson's bill before you today. because that population, we do have a limited ability to reward them while they're in prison for good behavior. Thank you, Dr. Parker.
Representative Patterson, would you like to respond? Well,
Speaker 3
20:27
I'd just like to say you're talking about giving these guys good behavior. Now, this one guy killed his father, and he killed his father's girlfriend, and then the girlfriend that he killed had a grandbaby right there that was killed also, and he threw the two women in the house that he set on fire. And then since he's been in the penitentiary, he killed someone in the penitentiary. So as far as giving some of these guys rewards, they're getting what they deserve. And so that's why I'm right here trying to do this, to keep these people from having to go through this stuff.
Thank you, Representative Patterson. Representative Declos, you recognize a follow-up question? Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Dr. Parker, would you inform the committee of your academic credentials in the field of criminal justice and your academic training? Because I know you identified yourself on the corrections board, but you're probably one of the few people that's actually trained in this field. Is that correct? Would you please let the committee know what your credentials are?
Representative Mike Patterson
Unverified
21:30
Yes, sir, I am. I'm a Ph.D. in criminal justice. I teach at UALR, and I'm a corrections specialist, and I've been on the board now for 18 years. So I've been around a long time and appreciate y'all's work greatly. But, you know, I'm in a precarious position because what Mr. Patterson is trying to do we all understand, and the people that we deal with in prison on a daily basis, many of them have done horrendous acts. both in and out of prison, to be perfectly honest.
And so, you know, this is a difficult situation because you can fully empathize with the victims. Our job is to manage that population, and we use every tool that we have available to manage that population on a daily basis, keep the people that we're charged with keeping safe safe, and keep our employees safe also. So I'll be happy to answer any of the questions that you have.
Thank you, Dr. Parker. Representative Baker, you recognize
Representative Tommy Lee Baker
Unverified
22:42
for a question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Patterson, four years ago, our first year here, we actually moved this from four years to six. And my question is, have we had time to see whether that's going to have any effect because we're only four years later and now we're tightening up a little more?
Do we know that where we moved it from is not going to suffice what we're trying to do? And I can understand it from both sides, especially the victim side, but we continue to tighten up, pour water on a drowning man, so to speak. So I wonder if that adjustment that we made four years ago is not adequate to fix this problem. Representative Baker,
Speaker 3
23:40
the parole board, and I discussed this with him.
And he thought it would be a good deal for them if we moved it from six years to ten years. And that's the only thing I can tell you about that. So I did discuss it with the chairman of that committee, and, you know, he thinks it's a good deal also. So if it was a bad deal, I think he would have told me.
Thank you, Representative Baker. Representative Gillum, you recognize for a question?
Representative Tommy Lee Baker
Unverified
24:12
Yes, this question is actually going to be addressed to you.
Sorry. I know we kind of changed up on you there. All right. So far, the questions from Representative Walker and others discussing the, I guess, hopelessness impact on other inmates and everything, I was wondering if you could address the impact that might be presented to the staff and to the guards and the personnel who you discussed that were managing this population. What potential impact are we looking at on them as far as their safety or just in their
Representative Mike Patterson
Unverified
24:47
livelihood? Thank you. That's a difficult question to answer. I can tell you that the more tools that line level staff, the people who are working with these inmates on a daily basis, who are in there for eight and 12 hours at a time on their shift, the more tools we have for them to manage that population, and that includes both rewards and penalties, but the more tools we have for them to manage that population, the easier their jobs are
and the safer they are, because remember, we've got 16,000 people incarcerated in Arkansas, and, you know, our ratio of staff to inmates is fairly high, so those officers, you know, communicate. They work with those inmates on a daily basis, and if you have inmates who have no hope of any kind of being released, there's not a whole lot you can offer them to maintain good behavior on a daily basis.
Representative Tommy Lee Baker
Unverified
25:54
So it could potentially set up a safety issue for the staff and the guards
Speaker 96
26:02
and the folks who are managing this? Yes, sir, it could. In
Representative Mike Patterson
Unverified
26:07
no way do I want to play that card of saying, if you do this, it will cause. That's not. Fair enough. Yes, absolutely. You know, it could raise altercation. It could raise violence levels. You know, it could do a number of things.
Keep in mind that about 1,000 inmates, you know, are in this category that we're talking about on any given day in our population, being in there for life or life without parole. So, I mean, there could be consequences. Maybe that's the best way to put it, is there could be consequences. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Gilliam. Mr. Hammer, you recognize?
Speaker 106
26:50
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Could you clarify
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
26:53
something? I may have written it down wrong a while ago, but the number I wrote down, 566, that this
is actually going to apply to, and you mentioned
Speaker 96
27:02
1,000. Yes, sir. I was combining two categories of inmates. We have inmates
Representative Mike Patterson
Unverified
27:07
for life, and then we have inmates who are in for life without parole. Mr. Patterson's bill affects the life without parole inmates. But when you look at our limitation of rewards, it applies to both of those populations. So that's the difference, and I apologize for the confusion. MR. No,
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
27:26
that's fine. Just for point of clarification, let me
also ask, if they're in there for an average
of 50, the comment was made a while ago about life without parole, I heard the number 50. We're actually decreasing the opportunity. MS. I'm sorry.
Speaker 112
27:41
Go ahead, sir. And I'll clarify. MR. Well, let me
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
27:45
just ask you this question. Based on the way this is written, and I want you to know, Mr. Patterson, being in prison is a choice, okay? With the way this is written, if you've got somebody that's coming up, say, a year from now and we enact this as law, does that mean that it's going to, for that person in that
scenario, is that going to move it out to six years? Are we kind of changing the rules in the middle of the game for those that are right there coming or the
Speaker 44
28:13
way this is written? No, the way, no, I don't think we're changing the rules in the middle of the training, no. I think if they come up, you know, they've got
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
28:22
10 years after that, the way I understand it. So their next cycle, wherever they are now in the process, if they're two years away from that date of 6, once they have that, then it moves to 10 beyond that, right? Correct. Okay, so actually if they want to be on good behavior,
they've got a little more incentive to be the best role model prisoner they can be if they know after the next one coming up it's going to be ten years out. Right. Is that a fair way of looking at it? That's a fair way of looking
at it. I just want to make sure we weren't changing
Speaker 44
28:52
rules in the middle of the game on them. No. And that's a different one. And there is special, it's not
Speaker 3
28:57
in this bill right here, but like if something comes up, they come up with some new evidence for someone, they can be brought up. They don't have to wait ten years to bring new evidence up. You know, so there is some stipulations in there like that.
So basically the only thing I'm changing is 6 to 10. Okay. Thank
Representative Mike Patterson
Unverified
29:12
you. And please, Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, let me clarify. The comment I made is that when we were talking about comparing other states to us, in some states, by law, life is equal to 50 years. Here it is not. But that's why it's so difficult to kind of get an average of what other states are doing is because in other states they actually define life and life without parole as a number of
years in law. So that's where that number came from. All right. Thank
you. Members, we have Representative Walker, Representative Branscombe, and Representative Powers on the list. Out of respect for Representative Hopper, I'm going to ask that if you don't have anything new to add that you refrain from asking that question. We need to rapidly bring this to a conclusion because we granted Representative Hopper a special order of business for three bills. So I'm going to ask that we rapidly bring this to a conclusion. Mr. Walker, you recognize for a quick question.
Do you recall how Attica erupted some 15 years ago, as I do, which involved a lot of people who were hopeless? Do you recall that? Yes, sir, I do. And did that – would you just explain
for some of the people who may not recall just how that developed? MS. Dr. Parker,
let me ask you, in Attica. MS.
It's a long story. MR. Yeah, in Attica, did it directly relate to this bill? MS. No, sir, it did not. MR. Okay, I'm going to ask you
to let's skip that question. Mr. Walker, do you have another question? MR. No,
Speaker 129
30:55
no. MR. Seeing no questions. Mr. Branscombe, you're recognized for a question. MR. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is to you. Turning the tables around and say that we're leaving this out there for a carrot for the inmates to maybe come every six years, but couldn't it also be pointed out that if they know it's going to be once every ten years
that they would be on more of their better behavior? And what's the effects of the inmates whenever they do get denied parole? Do you have more of a problem with them after they've been denied it? I'm not sure that
Representative Mike Patterson
Unverified
31:29
I could answer that without doing some research, and I would be hesitant to answer that because that would be speaking to an individual group of inmates, since it is a small pool, and I would not want to do that without doing some research before.
To answer your first question, yes or but, keep in mind how long 10 years is. for us in our lives 10 years in prison can seem like 20 years or 30 years so we deal just like we deal with a lot of individuals who desire immediate gratification they need
they need input they need support and And the longer the timeframes that you build things like this, the more hope they lose of, you know, of reuniting with their families, you know, and resuming potential roles in the community. Not saying that all of them are equipped to do that, but, you know, we look at both sides, and sometimes it's a really fine balance for us.
I'm going to recognize Representative Powers for the last question, then, Mr. Patterson, you'll be
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
32:55
ready to close for your bill. And I will be very brief, Mr. Chair. Dr. Parker, thank you for your insight and expertise. You've been very helpful. Do you believe that it is imperative that we have a number out there, whether four, six,
Representative Mike Patterson
Unverified
33:17
or ten? Absolutely. Yes, sir. Absolutely. be a goal, there must be a number there, whatever your choice as legislators and your wisdom,
there must be a number out there for these individuals
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
33:29
to reach for. MR. All right. And that answers my question, because if we repealed this law and there were no chance of executive clemency, that would be a total several steps backward for us. MS. Yes,
Speaker 96
33:42
sir. MR. Okay. I do appreciate you. Anyone else in the
audience who wants to speak for or against this bill? Seeing none, Representative Powers, you recognize the close for your bill? I'm sorry, Representative Patterson, what did I say?
Powers, I apologize. Representative Patterson, you recognize the close for your bill? Thank you,
Speaker 3
34:04
Mr. Chairman. I'd like to tell you, I don't want to go 20 years. I want to go 10 years. And I know there's a reason for that, and they've discussed it here today. But let me tell you this. They tell me out of these 566 that's life without parole, you've got so many of them that's pretty nice people in there. And then you've got so many of them that's not nice people, that's killed people outside, killed people inside.
So as far as the amount of years, the ones that cause trouble are going to cause trouble, and the ones that don't, don't. I mean, that's just the way it is. That's what they tell me. There are certain ones of them that they just can't hardly calm down. So, but anyway, I'd just like for you to think about the families on this issue, and I'd like for you to think about changing it from six years to ten years,
Chair
Unverified
34:50
and I appreciate it. Thank you for letting me be here. Thank you, Mr. Patterson. Representative Ratliff, you recognize for a motion? I move we do pass.
It's a proper motion committing. Representative Ratliff has moved due pass of House Bill
1419. Any discussion? All those in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. Chair calls this. The ayes have it. Representative Patterson, congratulations. You passed your bill. Members, we are now to our special order of business. Representative Hopper, you're recognized to present. Are you going to present them in order? No? Well, we'll wait until you get to the table and tell us what order you want to present them in.
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
36:10
Thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 1408, please. 1408. And there's
an amendment to House Bill 1408, is that correct? That is correct, sir. Let's see if we can get this amendment on. I have a motion from the Vice Chair to adoption of the amendment to
1408. Without objection, that amendment is adopted. Representative Hopper, you are recognized to present House Bill 1408 as amended.
Members, there is an impact study on House Bill 1408. Representative Hopper,
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
36:52
you are recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the committee, particularly for granting my request for this special order of business this morning. That has allowed me to coordinate the presence of Baxter County Sheriff John Montgomery to my left here to assist me this morning. Sheriff Montgomery, of course, at the appropriate time will officially introduce himself. I would tell you that in addition to his duties protecting and serving us in Baxter County,
he is also the former legislative liaison for the Sheriff's Association and now serves on that
Speaker 144
37:24
executive board. and it is at his request that I bring these three bills
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
37:31
before you this morning. To assist us in this process, you should have a handout from the staff that hopefully provides some clarification and some guidance to us as we go forward on the levels of sex offenders. That information, of course, was taken from the ACIC.
Again, you should have that, you should have an amendment, and you should have an impact study. Are we good to go? Okay. All right. And, of course, 1408, I'm going to briefly introduce, and then I'm going to ask Sheriff Montgomery to provide some testimony about why he has requested this and what this means to the law enforcement community. Of course, by title, it's simply an act to prohibit Level 2 sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet from a school, public park, youth center, or daycare, and for other purposes.
And with that, I'm going to defer to Sheriff Montgomery with your permission. Sheriff Montgomery, you're welcome to police.
First of all, welcome to the committee. Please state your name and tell us who you're with.
John Montgomery
Unverified
38:45
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Montgomery. I'm the sheriff of Baxter County, which is northern Arkansas. I appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning. I asked Representative Hopper to present this bill because we have what I believe is a problem,
safety problem for our communities. And if you will allow me just to clarify, there are four levels of sex offenders in Arkansas, Level 1, 2, 3, and 4. Level 1, the handout that was given to you is directly from the ACIC website. level one is a low risk to re-offend. And to remind you,
Speaker 148
39:21
the risk level is based upon the likelihood that they will re-offend. Level two is a moderate
John Montgomery
Unverified
39:28
risk to re-offend, level three is a high risk, and level four is a sexually violent predator.
A few years ago, the legislature amended our ability to notify the public because prior to that
Speaker 148
39:41
we were not allowed to notify the public on any level twos. Now they have defined what we commonly refer to as a high-level 2, and I've underlined it in this handout that you were given. A high-level 2 means that the perpetrator was at least 18 years of age and the victim was 14 years or younger. Now why that's important for us in law enforcement to be able to notify the public
and why that then was such a huge asset to us is because you're dealing with someone, their victim was 14 or younger. We're talking about someone that has a tendency, generally speaking, with children. Very, very dangerous. So we can now notify the public of where they are. The law currently says that a level 3 or level 4 cannot live within 2,000 feet of a school, daycare, park, et cetera. But it does not mention level 2.
So with the amendment, what we're asking is that we simply add those high-risk level twos to the current law that says that a high-level two cannot live within 2,000 feet, the school, daycare, park, et cetera. We've already adopted the amendment. Members, we're talking about the
bill as amended. Representative Hopper, are you complete with your presentation of 1408 as amended? Okay.
We are, sir. Representative Hopper, a couple of questions from the chair before we get started here. And maybe actually my questions really relate
to the various levels of sex offense, and I see Brad could resort back there, and I apologize, Brad. We're going to drag you into this every time we talk about this issue.
So you might as well come on up and let's see if we can get a few questions answered about this bill.
Speaker 154
41:43
Please state your name and tell us who you're
with. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Brad Cazor with the Arkansas Crime Information Center. Brad, this bill impacts level two sex offenders. Is there any correlation between
the crime that a person commits and the level of registration that they are required? I know that's based on the likelihood to reoffend, but does it also relate to the type of crime
Speaker 154
42:14
they committed? MR. Chairman, that's a good question. And I think the general answer to that is a definite maybe. The level that they are assessed by SOSRA, the Sex Offender Risk and Screening Assessment Program, is only partially or
Speaker 157
42:31
minorly partially based upon the crime for which they were convicted. The assessment level is done after a long battery of tests, and the Department of Corrections would be a better one to answer this than I, but it's a long battery of tests and analysis
and things that they do that determines whether or not or what their threat to reoffend is, which in many times somebody who is being assessed is determined that the crime itself may not have been that serious, but in the course of the evaluation and the assessment they find out that it's a much more serious person or serious threat to reoffend than the crime would indicate. So I say generally speaking, though, the crime and the assessment level are not directly tied.
The assessment level is directly related to what is determined during that assessment process by the sex offender screening and risk assessment group. Let me see if
the Department of Correctional would like to add any additional comments to that. Would you like to, would you please come and state your name for the record?
Speaker 162
43:47
I'm Donna Tyler with the Department of Correction, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. For the past 11 years, I guess, sex offender assessment has fallen under the umbrella of the Department of Correction. And Mr. Cazord is right. The crime is just one part of the assessment process, the crime for which they were convicted. It is a very in-depth and thorough process, often involving the use of polygraphs, maybe
voice dress analysis, because what they want to get to beyond that particular crime is what is the risk that person is posing to the public. For instance, letís say someone was convicted of Internet child pornography. We have seen over the years that through the assessment process that many times there was actually a live victim somewhere along the way, a human victim, not just some paper stuff done on a computer.
So thatís what the assessment process is trying to get at. The crime is just one factor.
So, Donna, under that procedure, there are likely people who've never been caught out here who, if they were assessed, they'd likely be rated at a level 2, 3, 4, possibly, but they should not ever commit a crime. Well, we know there are sex offenders who
haven't been caught. Or even never committed a crime. Right. I mean, just like there
are burglars who haven't been caught.
No, I mean there is likely your assessment. You could do an assessment on someone who's never committed a crime but likely could be rated at a level 1, 2, 3, or 4 but have never committed a crime, correct? If I'm following your thinking, yes, sir. Okay, because if it's not based on the crime, it's based on their likelihood to reoffend. And someone could theoretically have a likelihood to offend. I received a letter that many of you all may have from a citizen from the state, not my constituent, who, Dinah, had a situation similar to what you just spoke about her husband.
She and her husband often would together view pornography in their own home privately to considering adults, there were some child pornography that was accessed quickly, not looked at through some type of research with a site that had that, found out that this couple, this man, actually had downloaded this paragraph. According to this letter, and I'm not saying it's correct, according to this letter, that's
all that happened. This person is now required to register. This didn't happen in Arkansas, but now required to register as a level two offender. So based on that, it's not necessarily the
crime he committed, but it may be his likelihood to reoffend. Is
Speaker 162
46:45
that how someone like that? It's the likelihood of reoffending and, more importantly, the risk to the public. One thing I do want to say is it's important to remember that more than 90% of all sexual offenses occur either in the home or were committed by someone the victim knows.
We do have some predators who, for lack of a better phrase, roam the streets looking for a victim. But most of the time, it is done by people who know each other and in the home. And I'm
in no way sympathetic to any sex offender, but I'm trying to get questions so I can understand this issue better. And a level two sex offender, you consider that a moderate risk to reoffend. Can you define that for me, give me some parameters around what that means?
Speaker 162
47:39
I'm not the expert in sex offenders. And as I understand the process, you've got to think of it almost as a target, where level one would be a very small radius if they reoffend, because this assumes that they will reoffend. And if they do, then what's the risk to the public? So think of a target. A level one is very, very narrow. A level two spreads out a little farther. A level three spreads out farther than that. criminal level four who is a violent sexual predator spreads out the farthest and because
of that and the nature of their sexual acts poses the largest
risk to the public. And based on
their previous offense which requires registration as Representative Hopper's Bill here says a level two who was over 18 but the victim was under 14. Is this an assessment or rate their likelihood to reoffend someone else that's a minor or
if you've offended a minor before, you're more likely to offend a minor again?
Speaker 162
48:50
Can you help us with that? If that's who you are attracted to. If you are a pedophile and it's, you know, minors you want. And I think that's another thing that's important to remember is not all sex offenders are child molesters. They're not all pedophiles. And when you start putting residence restrictions, the latest research in this field, and admittedly it is limited at best, the latest research shows that residency restrictions don't help.
And in some instances, in many instances, they may actually make things worse because what they do is the studies that have been done by Jill Levinson, there have been studies in Ohio, in Florida, in California that have shown that these residents' restrictions actually push sex offenders farther into the shadows, into the hinterlands. They're not supervised then because they may not be reporting.
You don't know where they are. They're not getting the treatment services. So that's the latest school of thought by the experts on sex offenders is that residency restrictions don't work and may, in fact, make the situation worse, especially if a sex offender does not then, because of the restriction, receive the treatment he or
she needs. MR. Well, interesting, Ms. Tyler, your last comment about the latest research. Is that the position of the Department of Correction, or is that you just telling me
your information, your learned information, because you're just very knowledgeable of this area? MS. I'm
Speaker 162
50:42
not here to speak against the bill. I'm here to provide information, but that is the concern of the Department of Correction because we don't want these people to re-offend. We don't. We want them to get the treatment they need. So the department has no formal position? No. Just to provide information, and if I may indulge, there is another piece of information I'd like to get out there. When we have these residency restrictions,
sometimes sex offenders can't parole then. Today we have, I think, more than 1,400 people backed up in prison system who've made their parole eligibility date, but they don't have anywhere to go, and a percentage of those are sex offenders. When you put these on there, put restrictions on the residency, that makes it worse.
Can you quantify that for us? Because that's not in the impact assessment. Well, I spoke with Sherry Flynn a little bit ago, this morning in fact,
Speaker 162
51:38
and she said back in April or May she took a look at who was backed up, and this has been now, what, a little more than six months ago, And based on the number backed up at that time, it was costing the department more than a million dollars a year to house them. When you say based on
backup, are those that are based on backup because they are a level three or four sex offender that cannot go somewhere because now they're required to live in a certain place? Yes. That's the only people you're talking about. You're not talking about the,
we've got a lot of folks backed up who can't go anywhere, but not because they're sex offenders.
Speaker 162
52:10
Those are the sex offenders. Yes, the 1,400, not all of those are sex offenders, but some of them are. And when Ms. Flynn did that study, the number of sex offenders were costing us
more than a million dollars a year. Okay, well, I'm a little disappointed that that's
not on our fiscal impact study, but we'll take that. And I've dominated the questions here. I'm going to go on and may come back. Representative Rogers, you're recognized. Sorry. for Representative Deppenbaugh and then Representative Walker.
Sheriff Montgomery, since you're here helping with this bill, what is your opinion? Do you think this would deter Level 2 offenders? Do you think it would help in your district or your county? Well, there's a school
Speaker 148
53:04
of thought. And in one sense, you hear people say, well, sex offenders, they don't reoffend very often. Well, if you look at the amount of recidivism where they're caught, that may be true. My argument would be is because they're closely watched. They're watched.
They're labeled. They're put on the website. Everywhere they go, people hopefully know who they are. They can take the precautions to protect their kids or grandkids. And, again, in this case, what we're asking for is what we call the high-risk twos. In other words, those people that have a tendency to look for young children. So in our case in Baxter County, as of this morning, we have 68 sex offenders. Of those, we have 28 that are level twos. Of those 28, 17 are high risk, so more than half.
So of those high risk, the question is do we want, I guess I look at it as almost like an alcoholic. Do you want an alcoholic living next door to the liquor store? Of course not. And I can tell you from a personal experience where I've had people sit in my office and tell me that those tenancies are there, that they want the children, but they do everything they can to try to curb those tenancies. So what we're saying is don't give that temptation to them by having them live next to a daycare,
have them live next to a school or a park. And, again, we're not talking about all the level twos or even level ones. We're talking about those that are high risk that have a tendency
towards children. Thank you, Mr. Steffenbaum. Mr. Walker, you
recognize for a question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I ask my questions,
I guess this is off. When I ask my questions, it's not intended to be a reflection of what my feelings are about the subject.
So I want that understood. Mr. Walker. Mr. Walker, I would like to know if this reclassification system that you're introducing applies retroactively or prospectively. No, sir. It would be from this point forward. Anyone
Speaker 148
55:18
that's already currently living there would be, I use the term, grandfathered in, if
John Montgomery
Unverified
55:24
you will. All right. And the second
question, and this, of course, may go to Ms. Tyler.
Are there, are the criteria that you apply in making an assessment legislatively determined, or are they determined by staff? That's determined by staff. we have
Speaker 162
55:46
developed a risk assessment tool and then through those in-depth interviews Arkansas, I'm proud to say may indeed have the best sex offender assessment in the entire country
and a lot of a lot of what we are finding out
Speaker 177
56:10
is being disseminated to other parts of the country so they do
a very good and very, very thorough job Would you find it helpful for these criteria
to be legislatively determined or defined rather than have them just come up on the basis
of feelings that people may have and
want to have implemented who are not legislators? In our
Speaker 162
56:41
business, a lot of what we do has to depend on flexibility. We have to be able to react quickly to things that change. Just as drug use has changed over the years, sex offending changes too, and it will continue to change. I wish it would go away, but it's probably not going to, and all we ever ask is that we have the flexibility to do our job.
Now, finally, does the flexibility include the need on a high-level basis to have these people within sight, as you said, rather than
within the shadows? We don't want them in the shadows, and I think the sheriff made an
Speaker 162
57:24
excellent point when he said that he was talking to one in his office, and that's good. we want to make sure they continue to come into the office and we continue to know where they are
and they aren't hiding out in the woods somewhere in a tent because they feel like they're pushed and then they're out of sight, out of mind and left to their own devices I mean we want them to be reporting we want them to be receiving treatment and as far as the impulses yes, I mean that's one of the things that sex offender treatment does is teach the offender to recognize those impulses and not act upon them, to see their victim as victims, as victims.
And sometimes that needs reinforcement. Thank you,
Mr. Walker. Mr. Hammer, you recognize for a
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
58:19
question? I'd like to address this to Representative Hopper on the impact, so just make sure I'm grasping the numbers right. Up
at the top it says impact number, minimal, affected fewer than 10. offenders per year and I have drawn the right conclusion if I say that these 10 are taken out of the 3,407 that are mentioned down there
a couple paragraphs later Since
the registry reports that there are currently 3,40712 registered sex offenders
residing within the state, you go up to the second line, it says, on this impact, minimal affecting fewer than 10 offenders per year.
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
59:32
If I could, I would like to defer to Mr. Cozart, please, for your reply
Speaker 154
59:39
on that. Thank you. Representative, the number of Level 2s is essentially correct. We don't keep track in ACIC of inside
Speaker 157
59:48
the Level 2s of which one are what are being called high-risk Level 2s and others.
I mean, they're all Level 2s to us. But a quick scan this morning, as fast as we could looking through it, seemed to indicate to us that about half of those that are level 2 fit this category where the offender was over 18 and the victim was 14 or under. So of the total number of level 2, it's approximately half of those fit this criteria and half of them do not. And that's a very educated guess from a quick scan of the numbers this morning. Okay, well, help
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:00:22
me understand something then, if you would, please.
The amendment pulls out Level 2, and I presume that the reason it pulled this out and we had this amendment was because you were trying to identify that group that's currently labeled as Level 2 but are in the higher level as what
was said a while ago. Is that correct? That group was actually carved out, I
Speaker 157
1:00:46
don't know if it was the last session or two sessions ago, when there was a proposed bill to put all Level 2s onto the public web page. Prior to that, only Level 3s and 4s were on the sex offender webpage.
That bill, either again last session or two sessions ago, decided to carve out that niche of Level 2s, and that is the group of Level 2s who actually appear on the public website and the public can see, and the rest of the Level 2s do not. So that's where that distinction inside
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:01:18
guess because what I was trying to get my hands around was we got an impact study that says that this is affecting fewer than 10 offenders per year. And the way I'm interpreting it, and tell me if I'm wrong because I just want to have a good understanding.
The way I'm interpreting it is that the whole reason that we're doing this and identifying the Level 2, which now we've got an amendment that took out the Level 2 and substituted it with this,
is there's 10 that are identified. I'm interpreting that there are 10 that are identified or addressed in this amendment, and that's the group that you're trying to, for lack of better terms, well, target or identify in this
Speaker 157
1:01:57
bill. Am I way off base there? I can't tell you the numbers of level twos who fit that definition, that subcategory of level two.
I cannot tell you, or ACIC cannot tell you how many of them are living closer than the 2,000 feet that this bill. So, I mean, this is, ACIC doesn't have any position on this bill one way or the other. It's a policy question, but I can't give you a number to say of the total number of Level 2s who fit in that category, how many of them are currently residing closer
Speaker 152
1:02:28
than 2,000 feet. I do not know. If I may go back and try to answer your question, Representative Hammer,
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
1:02:34
as you just asked, I think if you will go down to Paragraph 4 that begins with Administrative Office of the Courts,
You'll see a sentence that says, less than ten of these offenders each year were sent to the Department of Correction, and I think that is referencing the number ten up there in the second paragraph when it references the impact summary to connect those two. At least that was my
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:02:59
interpretation of this. All right. Just my final comment, because what I'm trying to understand is are we saying are we wanting take all level twos and put them into this, by this bill, take all level twos and treat
them the same, when within the group of level twos we have
a higher level, and is that the higher level, the group that this bill is intended to address? The higher levels only, yes, sir. Only. And again, how many higher level number twos would you say there are based on the impact study? What number should I grab out of this impact study to say the number we're
Speaker 154
1:03:36
talking about trying to address is a quick look this morning I did a quick count but we had 3,029 level twos
Speaker 157
1:03:43
in our registry out of out of a total of 10,584 total
registered that just over 3,000 of those were level twos and approximately half of those are going to fit this category where the offender was over 18 and the The victim was 14 or under. Okay.
Thank you. Any additional question, members? Is there anyone here from the Sentencing Commission? Who prepared the physical impact? Was it the Sentencing Commission? Anyone here from the Sentencing Commission? We can talk about this impact study.
Lindsay Williams
Unverified
1:04:24
You state your name and who you're with for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 196
1:04:36
My name is Lindsay Williams, and I'm with the Sentencing Commission. We did prepare the impact
statement. I will try to answer whatever questions I can for you. Thank you, Ms. Williams. Your impact study seems to me relates to just one aspect of the impact of the Department of Corrections.
rule requires that a bill that has an impact both on the number or the dollars with regard to Department of Corrections to have an impact study. What this bill, what this impact study seems not to address is what Representative Tyler, I'm sorry, what Diana Tyler talked about earlier is that how many people do we have right now in the Department of Corrections, and I'm not sure if they're assessed there or not, but how many people do they have in the Department of Corrections who would not be able to be paroled from the Department of Corrections because they have no place
to go because the place they would live would be within
the prohibited areas of this bill. Did you look at that at all? We actually did not
Speaker 196
1:05:35
look at that, and we would be happy to go back and try to figure out that information for you. We just looked at the information as far as, and we did not have your amendment, so we just based it on the bill that we had in front of us. We just looked at the level of sex offenders that are registered to Level 2 on the front end of that and how many possibly could go to the Department of Corrections because of this.
And we based that information on the Levels 3s and 4s that are currently down there. And since it looked like there were fewer than 10 offenders that it had affected, we made the assumption that there would be less Level 2s because the likelihood to offend would be lower. But we would be happy to look at it if we can find any information out on the back end of that.
Well, that analysis gives me some concern because right now, since there are no residency requirements on Level 2,
they may be living anywhere, including in these prohibited areas. We have no idea. So it's hard to extrapolate, based on where Level 3 and 4 is living, who are prohibited from living in these places already, how many people would likely to reoffend. So it seems this assessment, this impact doesn't provide us with information necessary for us. Just to make really a fiscal analysis of what we're doing here, I don't know if I'm the only person that
shares those concerns, but it seems like this impact is way off basis for us.
Speaker 199
1:07:03
Well, according to the bill, it's not going to be retroactive, so it would just be going
Speaker 196
1:07:08
forward. So I'm not sure that we would be able to determine that. I mean, that's something that we can look at for
Speaker 162
1:07:19
you and try to determine. Ms. Tyler? In the Sentencing Commission's defense, let me add something. It's kind of hard to – you would almost need a crystal ball because let's say you are a sex offender out of Yelville, and I'm picking Yelville because it's a small town, and you're assessed at a level two,
and now you cannot live within 2,000 feet of a school or a daycare or whatever. You pretty much can't live in Yaleville because Yaleville, like so many towns in Arkansas, is so small, you would have to live outside the confines of the city limits not to run afoul of this statute. So to try to do an impact statement based on where somebody might live or try to live when they're out of prison is very, very difficult considering the makeup of the great state of Arkansas and the fact that it's built to a large degree on little bitty towns.
I just wanted to add that. Members, any additional questions? We have folks here who want to speak for and against the bill, I believe. Let's see. First, we have Lynn Gilmore who wants to speak against the bill. I'm sorry. We have Robert Combs who wants to speak against the bill. Mr. Combs, please state
Speaker 81
1:08:47
your name for the record until it's who you're with.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my
Robert Combs
Unverified
1:08:53
name is Robert Combs with Arkansas Time After Time, and we're in opposition to House Bill 1408 because expansion of such restrictions, one, isolates offenders, forcing them into rural areas, lacking jobs, transportation, housing, and treatment. Two, it creates homelessness, making it difficult for law enforcement officers to keep track of offenders. Three, it causes offenders to go underground and not update registry information. And four, it can prevent offenders from residing with supportive family members who live within restricted areas.
And we're not alone in our opposition. The National Association for Criminal Defense Lawyers and their policy statement says, such laws and ordinances do not provide effective community protection and threaten offender stability and reintegration into society. In the Association of Treatment of Sexual Abusers, the ATSA, they say in their policy statement, these residency restrictions aimed at improving community safety may inadvertently create an environment in which offenders are at more risk to reoffend. And in December, at the fourth annual Arkansas ATSA Conference, Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers,
Ms. Cherry Flynn, the administrator of the Arkansas Sex Offender Screening and Risk Assessment Program, in her presentation entitled, Residency Restrictions, Is There a Better Way? found that residency restrictions are ineffective. As she went on to state, residency restrictions may increase the risk of re-offense. And in conclusion, the ethical and responsible choices with regard to management of sex offenders are not always the most popular. This is especially true in the current sociopolitical environment that emphasizes accountability and many times has a punitive tone in regard to sex offenders.
However, the long-lasting impact on sex offenders, communities, and victims requires thoughtful, research-based policies and laws. There is much to learn from the states that have enacted such laws and research conducted thereafter. It appears counterproductive to endorse and or institute policies and laws based on fear, ignorance, and politics when it causes more problems than it solves. Community safety is paramount and should be the common goal when considering any policy of law regarding sex offenders.
Residency restrictions and zoning laws as a whole are clearly counterproductive to this goal. That last statement was from the Colorado Sex Offender Management Board, published in 2009.
Thank you, Mr. Combs. Members, any questions for
Mr. Combs? Thank you, Mr. Combs. Is there anyone in the audience who's not signed up that wants to speak for House Bill 1408? If not, I
have Mr. or I'm sorry, I'm not sure if Mr. or Mrs. Lynn Gilmore, who wants to speak against 1408.
Please state your name
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified
1:11:51
the record, and you're recognized. Hello. My name is Lynn Gilmore. I am a representative with Sex Offender Solutions and Education at Work. I'm here to talk today about this bill.
I'm going to start right off and say my husband is a level 2 offender. If HB 1408 is passed, my family and I would no longer be free to live where we want in the state of Arkansas. Our daughter and I would be punished for something my husband did 15 years ago. I have to ask you, what about our rights? Mine and my daughter's, we have done no crime. Why are we now targeting level two offenders?
My husband made one mistake 15 years ago and committed a consensual act with a 15-and-a-half-year-old female. I know that you're targeting level two offenders who committed their crime against a 14-year-old female. I want to point out that according to the ACIC, They believe that her age was 14, and as such, he is on the state sex offender registry.
We have found out that she was indeed 15 1⁄2, but we've been so far unable to obtain legal proof of her age. We've run into all kinds of dead ends on that. so he is now labeled as a level two offender for the one sole fact that he committed his crime at the home of his victim's brother instead of his own home which was less than an eighth of a mile away
had he committed his crime at his own home he would be labeled a level one offender they did not assign his level of risk based on his risk to reoffend, which was very low according to the Static 99 and Vassar tests. They raised it for that one reason that he was outside of his home. He is not a danger to anyone in any capacity, and yet he is continually punished as if he is.
And the collateral damage to our family, especially our innocent 8-year-old daughter, is significant. Our story is not a unique one. There are thousands of Arkansas families that this bill would affect quite negatively if passed. We cannot assume that all sex offenders live alone. Most of them have families, have spouses and children. The simple fact is most level two offenders, like my husband, are totally and completely
harmless and not a threat to anyone. I have more, but I don't know how much time you're going to give me. You're fine. Okay. Please proceed. Okay. I just have some things here. Residency restrictions are based on fear, not facts. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, child abductions are rare, stranger abductions even rarer. Kidnapping makes up less than 2 percent of all violent crimes against juveniles reported
to police, with stranger kidnapping being the most uncommon form of reported kidnappings. That was reported by the Sacramento Bee, August 28, 2009. are more likely to be relatives or acquaintances of their victim than strangers. That's from the Wikipedia's definition of child sexual abuse. The Jacob Wetterling Resource Center does not support residency restriction laws because residency restrictions have been shown to be ineffective at preventing harm to children
and may indeed actually increase the risk to kids. Such laws can give a false sense of security while sapping resources that could produce better results using elsewhere, and that is from the JWRC.org website. More research in California shows that only a tiny fraction, 3.38 percent, of released sex offenders are convicted of a new sex offense within 10 years of a release.
The study followed 3,577 prisoners who were released between 1997 and 2007 after serving time for sex offenses. An even larger parallel study by California's Sex Offender Management Board tracking 4,204 paroled sex offenders, only 3.21 percent were convicted of a new sex offense within five years of release. from the Walsh Park Prophet July 13, 2009.
Residency laws, laws that prevent sex offenders from residing within a prescribed distance from certain landmarks like schools or daycare centers are popular but controversial laws. There are many criticisms of these laws, all of which build a strong case for repealing residency laws. Number one, ineffective. in Minnesota and Colorado found no correlation between residents and sexual offending. Offenses are based on relationships, not geography, in a publication by Jill Levinson, a professor
at Lynn University. The law does not restrict daily activity. The law only restricts where the registrant sleeps. Law causes stress and instability in the lives of former offenders, and increasing the chance registrants will re-offend, increases the number of offenders registering as homeless, absconding, going underground, or giving false addresses as finding legal addresses are increasingly hard to find.
The laws force registrants to cluster together in the few areas allotted by the restrictions, generally in low-income high-crime areas has no impact on overall crime rates. Iowa found the number of sex crimes slightly increased in the year following the enforcement of their 2,000-foot residency law with only one crime listed as a stranger case. That's by Corwin Ritchie, Executive Director at the Iowa County Attorneys Association.
The Department of Justice published these reoffense rates of the following crimes, DUI was 78 percent, theft is 34 percent, drug related 30 percent, assault 15 percent, sex offenses the lowest at 3.5 percent. There's a lot of collateral damage to families. all over this nation are being punished for the past crimes of their parents. We are creating
a generation of emotionally injured, marginalized, angry children. Laws have been created that were supposed to protect children. Are they doing this? No, they are not. There is no proof that exists that proves that the sex offender registry has prevented even one crime. Experts in the field of research and treatment of sex offenders are reporting that these laws do not work and are causing more harm than good. As of December 17, 2010, there were 728,435 registered sex offenders nationwide.
If we assume that just two-thirds of them are married and allowed to live with their wife and 2.5 children, that means that there are well over a million people who did nothing wrong, but are being punished every day by these laws. In 2005, Dade County, Florida passed a local 2,500 residency restriction law effectively making the city of Miami off-limits to sex offenders. Desperate to find housing for registrants, the Florida Department of Corrections began
sending recently released registrants to live under the Julia Tuttle Causeway, the only that was legal under the local ordinance. The Julia Tuttle Causeway had no running water, electricity, toilets, or waste disposal. Social service agencies could not or would not help them. As many as 140 people lived in the colony in July 2009. The Julia Tuttle Causeway residents were banished through attrition. Despite national headlines, public outrage, and even court orders to clear out, the Julia
Tuttle Cosme residents remained under the bridge until April 2010 when the residents were moved into other housing. But their plight didn't end there. Further protests from nearby communities ensued and former residents of the encampment were evicted from a Miami hotel and most remain homeless today. We know through extensive law enforcement agency and academic research that, contrary to myth, former sex offenders have a low recidivism rate and that the vast majority
pose no risk to their neighbors. Monitoring more low-level offenders will make the community less safe by creating a bigger haystack for the few dangerous needles to hide in. This further reinforces the broad-brush stereotype that all sex offenders are alike, creating rudeness fear in the community. The Department of Justice says 93 percent of new sex crimes are committed by people who are not on the registry. This fact renders the registry basically useless.
Thank you so much. MR. Thank you, Mr. Gilmore. I
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
1:22:24
think we have a few questions for you. for a question thank you mr. chairman mr. Moore I'm truly sorry for the stress that as you mentioned you and your daughter have living under this you referenced your husband's case of a number of years ago of the victim being whether 15 and a half or 14.
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified
1:22:48
How old was he at the time? I think he was 32 or
Speaker 213
1:22:58
48 now. Okay, thank you. You've done a very good job with
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
1:23:03
your background. I've received communication from you, too, and you have percentages that state a lot of things, and I well understand the concern that the Department of Correction and so many have, but we don't live with percentages of people that don't get offended against.
We live with family members and loved ones who, if it happens one time, is devastating to that family. That is the victim, and that's what I don't want to see get lost this morning.
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified
1:23:37
Well, I totally understand, and I can speak from experience on that as well. I, too, was molested from the ages of 12 to 14 by a close family member. So I know what that's like. I went through therapy for years, and eventually I was able to face my molester
and talk to him about that, and I was able to forgive him. I didn't have to spend the rest of my life as a victim, and I don't believe that my husband has to spend the rest
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
1:24:14
of his life as a criminal. Two questions. One is you understand for
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified
1:24:20
you personally you're not going to have to move if this bill passes. I realize that I live in a very rural area, so I don't have that concern. But, you know, if this law passes, you know, the state so far does consider my husband a high-risk, level-two offender.
If we do decide to move at some point in time and we want that option, we would be faced with this restriction. My final question.
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
1:24:48
Do you understand that people that have been totally law-abiding, not that all of us are, we've all done things, but you understand people who have not been convicted and haven't done this, that they have concern and feel like they have a right to have protection, that they feel is protection and they're comfortable
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified
1:25:08
with. Well, absolutely. I believe everyone has that right.
Personally, I believe that our best protection is to educate our children on potential dangers that are out there. And as long as they abide by those rules, they'll be safe. Stranger abductions are exceedingly rare in this country. Thank you for that. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion to profit out.
Speaker 224
1:25:31
Thank you, Mr. Rice. Mr. Vines, did you have
a question? I just want to make
Speaker 226
1:25:39
a motion to limit debate, Mr. Chair.
That is a proper motion. How long would you like for a debate to be limited, Representative Vines? Ten minutes should be sufficient, Your Honor. Ten minutes per side? Total. Total ten minutes per side. That's a proper motion. All in favor of limiting the debate to 10 minutes per side, please indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. We will – did you say total 10 minutes or did you say 10 minutes per side? I'm sorry. Total, I'm sorry. That's a – well, then let's do this again.
Chair hurt incorrectly. So that's five minutes per side. Debate will be limited. All those in favor, aye. Opposed, no. Sorry about that, Mr. Vines. We are now keeping time, starting now. The next person on the list to speak, is anyone in the audience who wants to speak for the bill? I only have against signed up. Anybody in the audience want to speak for the bill? If not, next to speak against the bill is Mr. Rosenzweig. Mr. Rosenzweig, on my list, I only have one additional person to speak against the bill.
And just to remind you, your side
Speaker 56
1:26:48
has five minutes. Yes, Jeff Rosenzweig, Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. I'm going to be very brief. There are a number of problems with the bill. First, most people who are stranger offenses or violent offenses are level three. Most level ones and level twos are status offenses, in other words, age differentials, nonviolent family, that type of thing. Draftsmanship on here, and let me give a historical background first.
This bill or similar bills were rejected in the legislature in 2007-2009. Legislature did not want to put restrictions on level twos. This is at least the third time, third consecutive session that such restrictions have come up and are before the legislature. A draftsmanship issue in this case, the 14 age is a problem because most, with the exception with one exception, all the statutes talk about under the age of 14, not 14 and under.
But in other words, that the attainment of the 14th birthday is the dividing line, not the attainment of the 15th birthday. You have a question on the ownership, and this talks not where people live, but to be grandfathered in, you have to be an owner. If you're a renter, you're screwed under this bill. If you are living with your parents, your cousin, your aunt and uncle, or whatever someplace you can keep an eye on you, you're screwed under this bill. Only owners, and that's not a large group of people.
Again, the people you're getting here most often are the status offenses, the so-called Romeo and Juliet offenses, a number of whom would not even be convicted now because in 2003 the legislature got rid of strict liability on age differentials. But those people who were convicted before are still registrants. A number of people who were level twos were assessed under the prior regime of registration
where they didn't look at risk to reoffend, but they looked at other things. So you can't really generalize on them. Anyway, that's all I have to say. MR. Any questions,
Mr. Rosenzweig? Thank you. Next, we have John Wesley Hall speak against the
Speaker 229
1:29:29
bill. MR. Members of the committee, I didn't come here today expecting to speak, but somebody mentioned the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers being opposed to laws similar
to this. and I'm a past president, and I do reaffirm that this is NACDL's position. The reason why we took a position on this is our belief that these type of restrictions can actually cause more crime in the long run, while on the surface it appears to be good for citizens that you can create these kind of things, we think that everything has already been said. I don't want to even repeat that. If you drive people underground so they don't want to register, they stay away from law enforcement, then you're creating more of a problem. You need to keep it so people will
register so you can keep your eye on sex offenders. That's all I
have here. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Any additional questions from the audience, Mr. Hall? From the committee, Mr. Hall? No questions? Anyone else in the audience who wants to speak against the bill? Against the bill? Please come forward and shake your name, Mr. Eberhardt, and let to know who you're with.
David Eberhardt
Unverified
1:30:37
My name is David Eberhardt. I'm the director of the Department of Community Correction. It's probably more accurate to say that I'm here to provide some information
that I think you need to be aware of to inform you about whether this is a bill that should be passed. And I'm not going to repeat what's already been said, even though I agree with much of what has been said, but I would like to emphasize the fact that this is going to adversely affect our ability to find transitional housing for sex offenders if it's broadened to level twos. We already have transitional houses that will not accept level threes and fours
because they're within a restricted area. If it is broadened to level twos, it is going to be that much more difficult to find transitional housing because, again, they will be in a restricted area. And that's really all I wanted to add, but I do agree with much of the things that have been said. Thank you, Mr. Eberhardt. Members, are there any questions for
Mr. Eberhardt? Seeing none, is there anyone else in the audience who wants to speak against the bill?
The time has expired for those who want to speak against the bill. Anyone here in the audience who wants to speak for the bill? Seeing none, the time has expired
for those who want to speak for the bill. Now we're back to you, Ms. Hopper. Would you like to respond to
Speaker 233
1:32:12
anything that you've heard today? Mr. Chairman, I'm ready to close at the appropriate time. Appropriate time,
that is. We have a question from the committee. We're now at committee time. Members, we just limited a debate on public testimony.
We've not limited a debate on our testimony. So we're going to recognize Mr. Powers for a motion. I'm not suggesting that you limit debate.
I'm just letting you know the debate is not limited on our time right
Speaker 235
1:32:39
now. Mr. Powers, you're recognized for a question. Thank
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:32:42
you, Mr. Chair. I want to get back to the, and correct me or help me understand, Representative Hopper, the impact statement that we're looking at today, is that, is this impact statement in fact relevant to this bill?
So we're talking about the high risk, but the impact statement included all the level twos. Is this, in fact, relevant to what we're trying to pass here today? Representative Powers, thank you
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
1:33:08
for your question. And in my opinion, no, I've not been able to make the connections. But, of course, when I filed this bill, I was notified that this was on its way, and I received it and made sure it was in your packets today.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:33:24
Oh, I understand the rock and the hard place you may be in.
I guess my questioning is, if we don't have a relevant impact statement, why should we
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
1:33:43
consider this bill? To that, I would say that we have filed this bill. Well, I have filed this bill at the request of Sheriff
Speaker 140
1:33:52
Montgomery because the purpose of this bill is
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
1:33:57
simply to protect our children. And I'm in complete agreement with protecting our children, Representative Hopper, but it
still goes back to our question. I would prefer to have a relevant impact statement if, in fact, it's required before I considered a positive vote on this bill. And that's just my point. It's not much of a question, but I appreciate you. Mr.
Powers, you're correct that the House ruse requires an impact statement. We have that impact statement. I think it's our job to determine the relevancy of that impact statement. I might agree that there could be additional information, but that is not the fault of
Ms. Hopper. And so the relevancy of this impact statement is left for us to determine. And we have been told by Mrs. Tyler another figure. That's not an official impact statement, but we can also weigh that as we make our votes. Any other questions for Representative Gillum?
Representative Tommy Lee Baker
Unverified
1:34:58
You recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Representative Hopper, given some of the concern on the transitional housing and some of those issues there, Would maybe you be inclined to look at whether or not some additional language may need to
be in place to keep from having some of these departments be adversely affected by this? Representative Gillum,
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
1:35:29
like to clarify the last testimony I believe that was given by Mr. Eberhard, and to go back again and to clarify that we are only talking about the high-risk Level 2s. And I believe that last statement was a conclusive statement of all Level 2s.
And so I think we need to remind ourselves of, again, what the amended version of this bill does address.
Speaker 238
1:35:57
Fair enough. Thank you. No further questions, Mr. Chairman?
Members, any additional questions? Representative Rogers, you recognize for a question? I'd
like to make a motion, please. Immediate consideration.
That is a proper motion, none debatable. All those in
favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The question before the committee is the passage of House Bill 1408 as amended.
All those in favor, well, I'm sorry, we need a motion. I apologize. I should tell you I'm going a little fast. I will recognize my vice chair for a motion of do pass as amended. All those in favor of passing House Bill 1408 as amended indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. Chair, recognize the aye as having in this bill passing.
Speaker 240
1:36:59
Mrs. Hopper, would you like to present House Bill 1406? Yes, sir. That is correct.
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
1:37:07
If you'd give me just a moment to regroup here, please.
Speaker 243
1:37:28
Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Committee.
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
1:37:31
We are on House Bill 1406. There are no supporting documents for this one, so hopefully this is a little simpler than the last one. Again, this is a second bill that Sheriff Montgomery has asked me to bring before you, an act to amend the procedures for an administrative appeal of a sex offender assessed of a sexually violent predator
Speaker 140
1:37:53
and for other purposes. And I would, with all your permissions, defer to him for further explanation.
Speaker 246
1:38:09
You recognize, Sheriff Montgomery. I'm sorry. Thank you. This
Speaker 148
1:38:16
bill is really just to correct what we believe is a loophole in this law.
John Montgomery
Unverified
1:38:21
This has happened to us on more than one occasion. What happens is someone goes down and they're assessed. And so the assessment, whatever their level of assessment, they have a right to appeal that assessment. And once they make that appeal, there's a review board, is my understanding, that goes
back and decides whether or not that
Speaker 148
1:38:41
determination was correct. The problem with the current law is that it says that that level is reduced one during that time period. So even if the review board upholds it, that assessment, then they have a right to go out and file a civil appeal in court. And that can take as much as a year or longer. So the problem, you have a level three or a high-risk level two, and once that's reduced
by one, all of a sudden our hands are tied. So we've got someone living under a community that has been assessed properly, but now all of a sudden we're not able to notify the public about where these sex offenders live because we're required to reduce by one. Two things I think this would do. One, I think it certainly would help our ability in law enforcement because we now will be be able to notify the public once the assessment is done. But number two, I think it certainly makes it or behooves the person, if they are appealing
it, to speed up that process instead of to drag it out the way it is now, because the longer they can drag it out, the
Chair
Unverified
1:39:55
longer they can keep us from notifying the
public of where they live. Thank you, Chair Montgomery. Any questions from members? I have one question I want to make sure I understand. Tell me, is this
scenario correct? So if someone is rated a level sexually violent predator and they appeal that determination,
if this bill passes, law enforcement is allowed to notify the community at that level. Is that correct? That is correct. they appeal and they subsequently win that appeal and that was an incorrect assessment and it should be a lower level. The cat's out of the bag then, right? I mean, it's kind of hard to go back and fix that problem. Is that
Speaker 135
1:40:36
not correct? May I address that, Mr. Chairman? Either
John Montgomery
Unverified
1:40:44
one of you, sure. And the answer is yes, but in your scenario that you gave a level four, we would notify the public.
If they were reassessed, or let's say they won their appeal, and it was reduced to level three, we're still going to be able to notify the public. And
Speaker 148
1:40:59
so, to me, the error has to be on the safety of the public. So would the level of
notification change between three and four? Oh, absolutely. Once the
Speaker 148
1:41:09
new, you know, again, that could be in a civil court that, let's say, six months or a year down the road is changed.
John Montgomery
Unverified
1:41:16
And if that assessment level changed, we would certainly, at that point, law enforcement would be required to notify at the new level.
Right, but if after appeal they were successful, you've notified at the level four, meaning the broadest level of notification that you can provide. And through an appeal, it was actually, it should have been level three.
You've actually over-notified. Is that not correct? I guess the answer to your question
Speaker 149
1:41:40
would be yes, it would be correct. I guess my argument back would be at
John Montgomery
Unverified
1:41:45
that moment, once that would happen, whether that be two months, six months, a year later, then once we notify the public that a new assessment had come down and they were now three,
that information is also put out to
the public as well. Okay. Thank you. Members, Mr. Representative Hammer,
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:42:02
are you recognized? Would you please inform us if it's of a level four what the range of notification is and what the range of three and two on the basis of the bill we just – And I know this deals with living arrangements, but could
Speaker 148
1:42:17
you give us the range of notification on each level, please? Well, that's going to vary
John Montgomery
Unverified
1:42:23
a little bit, Representative Hammer, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I can tell you in our particular case when we receive notification of a high-risk two, a three, or a four,
they go on our website, a press release is issued to the local media, And we go out and we notify the neighbors within a half a mile, and if it happens to be a level four, we go a full mile. And we actually hand out flyers to all the neighbors. So the difference between, and again, this is only a high-risk two, because under current law that was passed, I believe, in 07, we can only notify the public of high-risk twos, not a low-risk two. Members, any additional questions?
Signed up to speak on the bill is Dinah Tyler. No need. All right. Let's see. Anyone else in the audience who wants to speak for or against this bill? Seeing none, Representative Harper,
would you like to close for your bill? Yes, thank you again, Mr. Chair.
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
1:43:40
Thank you, Committee. As Sheriff Montgomery stated just a moment ago, this bill before you simply closes a loophole, and I would ask for a favorable vote, please. What's
the pleasure of the Committee? I have a motion from Representative Baker of Dupas. All those in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mrs. Harper. You passed
House Bill 1406. Now you have House Bill 1407.
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
1:44:10
You're recognized to present that. Thank you again, Mr. Chair and committee. And with all apologies to the committee, I
would have to say that with some late developments on this, we are going to ask your permission to defer this third bill at this time. I don't think you'll have any objection from this committee. I
was watching the clock. I didn't think so. Thank you. Thank you. Members, we have, I will remind you on last Thursday we get out early.
And this is not a day we're going to get out early. I'm going to ask us that we continue on unless there's an objection from the committee. Seeing none, Representative Edwards has been patiently waiting. Representative Edwards,
you're here to present Senate Bill 4. You are recognized to present Senate Bill
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
1:45:05
4. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. This bill is to deal with something and provide solutions for our citizens and their families
that we all may have to deal with at one point in our time. There's two assumptions I want to make. that I believe are irrefutable. The first is that we, as a society, are living longer and have fuller lives. The second is that we, as a society, are more mobile than we used to be. I was looking through the membership book of the General Assembly the other day,
and it was interesting to see how many people who are currently members of this body that were not born in Arkansas but are now serving in Arkansas. In my great-grandfather's time, that would have been very unusual. And the reason I bring these points up is that the bill we have before you is an adult guardianship act. It's a uniform act where we are attempting to resolve problems that families can face, particularly when you're dealing with older adults.
And I'll give you an example. But if you have a loved one who is in need of a guardianship order, an order that's issued by the court, an order that's given with notice to all interested parties, you know, it's a public proceeding, if you are living in a state, let's say Texas, for example, and you have an order issued by a Texas court for your loved one who's with you in Texas,
And then you move to Arkansas. Now, there's a real good chance. The way the law reads right now, courts in Arkansas don't have to recognize a guardianship order. And, again, a guardianship order is an order that's done to help protect the interest of the person that's been declared incapacitated. And we're talking about adults here. But our courts are without jurisdiction to recognize something that's already been ascertained in another state.
One of the things that this bill will do is if you have someone who moves to Arkansas with their loved one and they have an order from another state that's a valid order, it gives our courts a way to recognize that order. Okay? That's a positive thing. Another thing that this bill will do is when you have a situation, and we have this in many cases in our state, you may have a person who lives, say, in Michigan for some part of the year,
but then they have a second home here in Arkansas. There can be a question of what really is their home state. This bill provides guidance to help us understand and help guide our courts on how to handle which state should be the proper state for issuing an order of guardianship. And, again, these kinds of orders are typically only done when there's a need to either help protect an individual or to help provide protection for their assets.
I mean, in a perfect world, and I don't do a whole lot of what we call elder law in my practice, but I have done some. I mean, in a perfect world, while an individual is still lucid, they would probably have a very well-prepared, durable power of attorney that would clearly set out how their affairs are to be handled. But we don't live in a perfect world. I mean, any of us in this room today could have an event happen to us that could leave us incapacitated tonight.
And when you were in a situation that if you had your family member, the person that was appointed as your guardian, if you moved to another state, you run the risk of having to go through the same process all over again that you've already done in Arkansas. The purpose and the reason we have these uniform laws is to allow our courts and provide our citizens with greater certainty on how things work. So if you're moving from state to state, you know what the rules are.
Now, one of the questions I've been asked is how many states have already enacted this law for adult guardianships. Thus far, there are 20 states that have enacted this legislation, including two of our neighboring states, Oklahoma and Tennessee. In this session and in this year, there are 13 states, including Arkansas, that are considering this legislation. And we have two more neighboring states, Mississippi and Missouri,
that is considering this same bill. So I think it will help resolve a lot of conflicts with families. I think it will help guide the courts on how to handle a situation in a proper way, and I think it gives everyone the tools they need to make sure that their loved ones are protected, and I'd be happy to take any questions. Thank you, Mr.
Edwards, for that presentation. Members, any questions for Mr. Edwards? Representative Steele, you recognize?
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
1:50:43
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly, does this in any way change the process by which you get a guardianship over an individual in this state right
Speaker 261
1:50:55
now if there's no other guardianship
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
1:50:58
coming from another state? Our rules will stay the way our rules are as far as notice and things of that nature. What it does, and it's an excellent question, what it does, though, it puts all the states on the same notice requirements, if you will.
And if a, as an example, the question may come up, there may be a guardianship that's been granted here in Arkansas. Well, say the people from Arkansas moved to Oklahoma, for example, which has already passed this law. The courts in Oklahoma would have under this provision, they would have the opportunity to essentially ratify what was done in the Arkansas court
if it was seen to be in the interest of the people, again, saving the family, the expense and the emotional turmoil of having to go through this proceeding. So it's really just a methodology to provide some streamlining of something that can be a very emotional issue for families. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Steele. Any additional questions, members? Anyone in
the audience to speak for or against the bill?
You recognize? Come forward and please state your name and who you're with for
Cheryl Warden
Unverified
1:52:26
the record. Good morning, Mr. Chair. My name is Cheryl Warden, and I've just gone through that process the last nine years, relocating here in Little Rock to care for my parents. And I didn't know I was sitting next to this kind gentleman and what he was going to talk to you about. What I wanted to say is that the bank is who initially was overseeing my parents' accounts. and by me relocating that and then going to court,
Alice Gray's court granted me guardianship, but the POA was ready for me by Adult Protective Services. So I would think if there was someone to monitor a transfer or someone moving here and did not receive Arkansas guardianship or Arkansas POA, Power of Attorney, I would think that maybe Adult Protective Services would be the monitor. Thank you,
Mr. Worden. Any questions for Ms.
Worden? Any comments? I'm sorry, you have
no questions? No questions. Anyone else in the audience speak for or against the bill? Mr. Edwards, I have a motion here. Would you like to close for your bill? I'm close, sir. I recognize Representative Wilkins for a motion to do pass. All those in favor of passing House Bill, Senate Bill 4, indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr. Edwards. Senate Bill 4 passes. Next on our agenda is House Bill 1245, Representative Wilkins.
Thank you.
Members, we're going to amend House Bill 1245 with Amendment No. 1. All in favor, aye. Opposed, no. Representative Wilkins, you're
Chair
Unverified
1:54:55
recognized. Present House Bill 1245 as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:55:00
A week before last, I believe it was, we spent a great deal of time on this bill, had some good discussion, and out of that discussion came a request from the committee certainly a sentiment from the committee that it be amended to delete lines 19 through 22.
And I believe last week when I left to go to Transportation Committee, and I believe there was some concern about whether or not the amendment was correct. But in fact, the amendment is correct. The A is being deleted because there would be no need for the A because B is being deleted. So with that, Mr. Chairman, and the previous discussion and the concerns about that section on page two, the bill is before you, and I'd appreciate a good vote.
MR. Thank you, Mr. Wilkins. You're correct. We did have a previous discussion. Let's see if there's anyone in the audience, anyone in the committee that wants to ask any questions. Anyone in the audience that wants to speak for or against the bill? Mr. Muldone is signed up to speak for the bill. He had to leave. He had to leave. Had to leave? No problem. Anyone else here who wants to speak for or against the bill? Members, what's the?
Speaker 135
1:56:29
I have a question. Oh, you have a question? Okay. We're back to the members. We have a question from
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
1:56:35
Representative Steele. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. No problem. I thought I might ask this of Mr. Muldone, but
he's not going to testify. This bill still requires a district judge or a circuit judge to issue an arrest warrant rather than, I guess, the process now where they have that within their discretion. Is that correct? Yes. And is the purpose of that so that the bonding agent would not have to take it upon
themselves to retrieve this defendant so that we could use the resources of the state to retrieve this defendant?
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:57:07
If you don't mind, may I defer to an active agent? Thank you. Sure. Please state your name and
Speaker 275
1:57:16
tell us who you're with. Tom Nicklich with Exit Bailbonding Company out of Russellville. No, that's not why we want the warrant. Could you explain, please,
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
1:57:28
to the committee why we would want to force a judge to issue an arrest warrant
Speaker 277
1:57:33
any time a defendant failed to appear? Because it would be subject if anybody would, if he got stopped anywhere, he would be
Speaker 275
1:57:42
arrested by the officer that stopped him. We'll be looking for him with or
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
1:57:50
without the warrant. Okay. Would it make it a little easier to locate a defendant if there was an arrest warrant issued? I don't think so. So is it necessary to make it a mandate on a judge to issue the warrant rather than request
a warrant at the time of the failure to appear or request it maybe through the state, through the prosecution or some other way as opposed to forcing judges to issue arrest warrants? MR. The majority of the judges issue arrest warrants
Speaker 275
1:58:20
when there's a failure to appear. There's only a couple that I'm aware of that do not. Okay. Do you know of any reason why
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
1:58:29
a judge might not want to issue an arrest warrant at that time? I don't
Speaker 275
1:58:33
know why he doesn't want to. If I went to him and asked him to issue a warrant, he issues a warrant, but only on request.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Steele. Tom, could you give me your last name
Speaker 279
1:58:50
again? I apologize. Nikolic. Spell it for us. N-I-C-K-O-L-I-C-H.
Thank you. Representative Wright, you recognize for a question? Thank you, Mr.
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:59:01
Chairman. Mr. Nikolich, are you saying that there's no valid reason why a judge may not issue an arrest warrant? Why he may not? That's correct.
Speaker 275
1:59:13
I don't know why he doesn't want to issue a warrant. Everybody in the state, with the exception of a couple jurisdictions, issue a warrant when there's a failure to
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:59:23
appear. Every single time? Every time. Okay. What if somebody's in the hospital and has a valid reason for not appearing in court? Then he won't have a failure trip here. But under your logic, they'll still have an arrest warrant.
Speaker 275
1:59:37
Is that correct? No. If he's in the hospital, as soon as the court's notified that he's in the hospital, or if we are aware of it before court, we let the court know, and they just continue it.
They don't issue a warrant because he's in the hospital. Thank
you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay, but what if the person, no one, there's no family, no one in the, that knows where this person is, they just do not appear, and they are in the hospital, so the warrant's going to have to be issued at that point in time, but then they do find out that they're in the hospital and that's why they didn't appear.
I'd like you to answer that, please. They recall the
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
2:00:29
warrant. MR. Representative Steele, you recognize? MR. I
apologize, Mr. Chairman. Just one more question. If we don't usually have problems getting judges to issue warrants in this situation, then why is the legislation forcing them to do so necessary?
Speaker 275
2:00:42
MR. Well, it would be nice not to have to go and ask him every time to issue a
warrant. All the other courts issue them automatically if there's a failure to appear. And all we're asking is that this be done, too. Mr. Ripson,
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
2:01:02
to steal, may I defer to Mr. Parnell to answer that? Sure. Brad
Speaker 131
2:01:12
Parnell, owner of First Arkansas Bell Bones. I'm Brad
Speaker 288
2:01:25
Parnell, owner of First Arkansas Bell Bonds Incorporated.
I can see some confusion here, and I think maybe I can help. The reason for this change in this bill is strictly based on when we receive a show-calls order from the court. If we have an individual that fails to appear in court, the judge sends out a show-calls order there's some instances in the state to where certain judges not all of them the 90% 95% of them issue warrants with the show calls order when when someone fails to appear some judges have the belief that since a bondsman has
written the bond that they're not entitled to actually have to issue a failure to appear warrant so that's what we ran into then we ran into situations where we try to apprehend these people may be out of state and we try to obtain help from other law enforcement and they won't even attempt to help us unless we have some type of warrant and at the same time in action on bond and circuit court which is code 1684 207 which deals with circuit court
we're trying to compare action on bond and district course to the same and in the language in that statute it states that a warrant shall be issued when a bond hearing is issued so if the judges are going to issue a show cause or a bond hearing notice us requiring us to produce this a defendant or pay the bond then we feel like the actions or the language in circuit court should be the same and in district court should be the same as circuit court and require a
warrant to be issued. Also in that same statute, later on in that statute, there's language that does say the appropriate law enforcement agency shall make every effort to apprehend this defendant. Well, I mean, we're not asking them to go pick this person up for us, but I would think that would at least mean to have a warrant issued. And that's what we run into a few times throughout the state, not often, but we just want it to basically read the same way actionable bond and circuit court reads, where they are
required to issue a warrant if they do, in fact, issue a show cause hearing to us. It has nothing to do with all the people that fail to appear for different reasons. It's about when we get issued a show cause order from the court to
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
2:03:50
produce the defendant within 120 days. Okay. I don't have the circuit court statute you're mentioning in front of me. It's a surprise to me, frankly, because in my experience, circuit judges tend to ask whether or not a bench warrant is necessary. But can you tell us, I guess we asked this question earlier of one of your colleagues,
can you tell us why a judge, or maybe speculate, why a judge might refrain from, in his discretion or in her discretion, refrain from issuing a warrant in these situations? Well,
Speaker 288
2:04:18
like I stated, that's only happened in a few cases throughout the state where there is a few district judges that seem to think that if a bondsman writes the bond, then they seem to have in their mind that there's no reason to issue a failure to appear warrant if the bondsman is written as a bond. And in the same instance, if they let someone out on a signature bond that same day
and they fail to appear, they will issue a warrant for that subject. But if it involves a bondsman, they will not issue a failure to appear warrant. So basically all we're asking in this bill is to say, hey, if you're going to issue a show cause order to the bondsman to produce this defendant, then issue a failure to appear warrant.
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
2:04:57
So you're asking us to take away the discretion of the judges and force them to issue warrants to accommodate the bondsman? No,
Speaker 288
2:05:03
I'm asking it to read the same way the circuit court reads in action on bond circuit courts and district courts where they shall issue a warrant.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Steele. Mr. Walker, I think I saw your hand
next, then followed by Mr. Powers. You did, but my question became unnecessary with Representative Steele's questioning. Thank you.
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
2:05:27
Thank you. Representative Powers, you recognize? Oh, just quickly, I don't really have a big feeling about this either way, but since we're mandating judges, and I've had some e-mails from district judges that say this is not necessary,
what is the district judges' association's stance on this, or do we have any input from that organization, since obviously we're affecting their day-to-day operations and their clerks? So what's the position that you all have to
support what you want here? I don't know that we have any position that
Speaker 287
2:06:05
I know of from the district court judges. I know the Arkansas
Speaker 288
2:06:09
Association of Counties had questioned some of it originally before it was amended,
and my understanding is they didn't have a problem with it. That's my understanding. As far as the actual district court judges as a whole, I don't know. Like I said, the vast majority of them issue warrants anyway, so it's not anything changing
Speaker 211
2:06:34
for them. Yeah, I know. We ran into that problem the other day on the floor of the House when we told
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
2:06:43
a bunch of people that normally circuit judges do this, but not every time.
And now we're mandating, and I found out, you know, we found out differently. So that's just my question. I thank you. Members, any additional
questions? Representative Wilkins, would you like to close for
Speaker 293
2:07:04
your bill? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm finished. Thank
Speaker 156
2:07:10
you. You're finished. I'm finished with this particular
Speaker 294
2:07:14
bill. All right. What's the pleasure of the committee?
We have a motion by Representative Baker of Dupas. As amended, any discussion? All those in favor of passing House Bill 1245 as amended indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. No. Mr. Wilkins, we're sorry, but House Bill 1245 does not pass. Would you like
to present a trial with House Bill
Speaker 185
2:07:46
1386? I'm looking at the committee to see how hungry they are.
Chair
Unverified
2:07:52
We're going to stay here because this is our last bill, but you do have the committee 10 minutes past lunchtime. And I certainly don't want to end up
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
2:08:04
being lunch. We've already had an appetizer. I see. I hope it was filling enough. We'll bring this bill before the committee and have some discussion about it. It's a good bill. It's a simple bill. However, it's not a non-controversial bill. But let me just share with the committee real quickly what House Bill 1386 does.
It changes the composition of the professional bill bond board from eight members to ten. It changes the terms from seven years to three. IT ADDS SOME CITIZENS TO THE BOARD, GIVES THE POWER OF APPOINTMENT TO THE GOVERNOR, THE POWER OF APPOINTING THE CHAIRPERSON TO THE GOVERNOR, AND IT STATES THAT THE CHAIRPERSON
of the board shall not be company owner. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Wilkins. Members,
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
2:09:23
any questions? Representative Powers, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Representative Wilkins. I'm always reluctant when we start expanding boards around here and there are always questions. What exactly is the rationale to expand at this point?
Is that geographic reasons possibly, or what's the justification for
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
2:09:45
that? Well, certainly we want to have a good representation from across the state. The demographics I think are important, but more than that, I think we also need to have more non-company, non-law enforcement or legal folks on the board. I think it needs more just ordinary citizens.
So with that in mind and then the fact that, as the governor does on so many board appointments, I think it's appropriate for the governor to have the power of appointment of the chairman as well. but the expansion would not really cost any monies. The board only meets a few times a year unless there is a call meeting, and the monies that have been spent primarily, as I understand it from the last time I looked at it,
we were in good shape financially in terms of the expenditures when the board meets just on its regular basis. All right, that's fine. Thank
Speaker 235
2:11:00
you. Thank you. Representative Eubanks, you recognize
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
2:11:11
for a question? Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the emergency clause, it says that the current makeup of the board is unsustainable. Why is that the case?
And if we're enlarging the board, does it make it even harder? And on the question that Representative Powers had by expanding this board, do these board members receive per diem? And if they do, then I would seem to think that we're increasing the cost of the
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
2:11:44
operation of the board. They do receive per diem. I don't remember off the top of my head exactly how much it is, but it's $75 per meeting.
I'm not sure why the language refers to utilize the term unsustainable. I don't know what that means, but what I do know is that in an era of term limits, when legislators can only serve a certain period of time, and we're appointing people to boards like this where you have people serving seven years, I think that that may be what the term unsustainable is referring to.
I think that there needs to be a greater limitation on the length of time that someone can serve on a board like
Speaker 298
2:12:40
this. Mr. Chairman, could I have another question? Absolutely. Go right ahead, Mr. Eubanks. What is the normal length of
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
2:12:47
time that other members of other boards serve? There are some boards where the length of time is long, like the highway department. But many of the boards, the term is three or four years.
Thank you. Any additional questions, members? Seeing none, does anyone in the audience want to speak for or
against House Bill 1386? Please state your name
Speaker 300
2:13:20
and tell us who you're with. My name is David Veeley. I am a bail bond company owner. I am here on behalf of what I consider to be the bail bond industry.
I thank the committee for allowing me to speak, and I'd also like to thank Representative Wilkins for being a big advocate of the bail bondsmen and the bail bond laws. And I'm here to speak against this bill for a couple of reasons. And before I do that, I'm going to give a, just for 30 seconds, I need to remind the committee of why the bail bondsman even exists. Why is bail bond business around? Because we play an important role.
We're primarily responsible for the incarceration of a vast majority of defendants that are currently in court. We saved the state of Arkansas about $60 million a year. It's a pretty important role, and I don't think that that's been mentioned at all in any of these bail bond bills that have been presented. I am here to support all of the different bills that the bail bondsmen,
and both Representative Wilkins and Senator Jeffries have brought forth, except this bill. And this bill, maybe I'm interpreting this wrong. Maybe I'm not reading this right, but this bill, to me, doesn't just expand the board. It creates a new board. Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly, but I believe that this would dismantle the current board.
And I speak against that primarily because the board that we currently have, Right now, we're governed by laws and we're governed by rules and regulations that have been modified and established and continue to be modified, but they're administered by our board of directors, by our licensing board. And our licensing board has done a remarkable job over the last couple of years in straightening out our business. They've gotten rid of some really bad bail bondsmen and bad companies.
They have been in circuit court. I've sat through every circuit court hearing that related to the bail bond business. I've watched them vigorously and aggressively go after these rogue agents and rogue companies. This is a bail bond board that not only is sustainable, but I believe that has acted in the best interest of our industry and the best interest of the citizens of Arkansas. And, again, if I'm reading this bill correctly and our current board is modified, dismantled, expanded, I really am concerned on an emergency basis.
I mean, there's an emergency clause in this. And if I understand an emergency clause, that means as soon as this bill is acted, it goes into place. I am concerned because I don't know what the emergency is. I'm very close to this business. I run a company. I'm president of one of the associations that have 85 members, bail bond members now. I am concerned that I don't see the emergency that is the basis of this bill. And I am also concerned about what would happen in the near term should this bill pass and become law.
I think we're going to have a huge disruption in the bail bond business where we are all of a sudden having to figure out how to administer these bills and we're forgetting about these guys that we're supposed to be bringing to justice and the people that we're trying to get out of jail. I wanted to close by saying the bail bond business is blind to race, religion, creed, and everything else. We bond out everybody that is qualified to bond out, and that's where I want to focus. I want to be the best bail bond company owner and best bail bondsman in the state of Arkansas,
And I believe that the current board has allowed us the opportunity, allowed me the opportunity to do that. And, again,
I thank Representative Wilkins for bringing these forward. Mr. Vila, we have a few questions for you. Yes. First, Representative Rogers,
I recognize you for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is the current president or chairperson of the board or, wait a minute, let me get that right again. The current president or chairperson of this board, are they a licensed bail bond company
Speaker 300
2:18:00
owner or agent? Yes, the current director is Curtis Clark, and he is a bail bond company owner. And
perhaps could that be the reason that this is considered
Speaker 300
2:18:13
unsustainable? Again, personal opinion is that he's done a fine job as chair. I don't know what emergencies he might have created to cause this bill to be brought forward. Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. Rogers. Representative Vines, recognize.
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
2:18:30
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just for clarity's sake, who is making these appointments right now? I think the
Speaker 307
2:18:43
Governor is, yeah. I also have a motion for immediate consideration.
That's a proper motion. Two-thirds of the quorum. None debatable. All those
in favor of immediate consideration indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? No. For a motion. I have to have a motion before me.
Anybody want to make a motion for
us to consider? Representative Vines, you recognize. For a motion. Do pass. Do pass. have to make a motion if there's not one before us. I just want to make sure you understood you'd have to have one. Motion before the committee is due pass House Bill 1386. All those in favor, aye. Opposed, no. Mr. Wilkins, 1386 fails. Members,
I see no other business before this committee. We are adjourned until Thursday morning. Thank you.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1419
HB1408
HB1406
HB1045
SB4
HB1245
HB1386
Adjournment
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Darrin Williams Chair
Unverified
Speaker 3
Speaker 7
Representative Tommy Lee Baker
Unverified
Representative John W. Walker Chair
Unverified
Representative Les "Skip" Carnine
Unverified
Speaker 30
Speaker 47
Speaker 56
Speaker 57
Speaker 60
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
Speaker 66
Speaker 81
Representative Jim Nickels Chair
Unverified
Speaker 85
Representative Mike Patterson
Unverified
Speaker 44
Speaker 96
Speaker 106
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Speaker 112
Speaker 129
Chair
Unverified
Representative Karen S. Hopper
Unverified
Speaker 144
John Montgomery
Unverified
Speaker 148
Speaker 154
Speaker 157
Speaker 162
Representative Tiffany Rogers Chair
Unverified
Speaker 177
Speaker 190
Speaker 152
Lindsay Williams
Unverified
Speaker 196
Speaker 199
Robert Combs
Unverified
Lynn Gilmore
Unverified
Representative Kathy Webb
Unverified
Representative Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 214
Speaker 213
Speaker 224
Speaker 226
Speaker 229
David Eberhardt
Unverified
Speaker 233
Speaker 235
Speaker 140
Speaker 234
Speaker 238
Speaker 240
Speaker 243
Speaker 246
Speaker 135
Speaker 149
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
Representative Tracy Steele
Unverified
Speaker 261
Cheryl Warden
Unverified
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 275
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 277
Speaker 279
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
Speaker 131
Speaker 288
Speaker 287
Speaker 211
Speaker 293
Speaker 156
Speaker 294
Speaker 185
Representative Jon S. Eubanks
Unverified
Speaker 298
Speaker 300
Representative John T. Vines
Unverified
Speaker 307