House Judiciary Committee
Video
Transcript
Bills discussed (10)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1207
· 6 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1207”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1305
· 3 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1305”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1318
· 2 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “HB1318”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
SB4
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “Tyler. Senate Bill 4 for David Johnson.”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB10
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “Anyone here who runs Senate Bill 4? How about House Bill 10 or 1015 for Representative Woods? I'll commit if you don't…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1010
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1010”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1015
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1015”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1209
· 1 mention in transcript
Matched: “…ve passed House Bill 1207 as amended. Is anyone here to run House Bill 1209? Vice Chair Wilkins is running a bill on another committee.…”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1244
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1244”
|
Pre-2017 bill | ||
|
HB1245
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1245”
|
Pre-2017 bill |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin RTX5060
- Processing date
- October 4, 2026
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
0:00
Mr. Sherry, you are recognized to present your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is House Bill 1207. It's an act to amend the distance from which a person can protest a funeral. In Arkansas, we're a fairly large military state, about 10,000 people in the Guard, and we've had six or seven occasions where we have had funeral protesters at funerals of military personnel. Mr. Stewart, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Do you have an
Speaker 3
0:25
amendment? You want to put your amendment on the bill, then we'll talk about it?
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
0:30
I'm sorry. No problem. Yes, if you look, Amendment
Speaker 4
0:34
No. 5, and it may not be numbered on there, but No. 5, the House Bill 1207. Has
that been handed out, staff? Okay, members, you have that in front of you. Mr. Stewart has an amendment,
Amendment No. 5. Do I see a motion to allow him to amend? Representative Nichols is recognized for a motion to allow Representative Stewart to amend this bill. All those in favor of Amendment No. 5 to House Bill 1207 indicate by saying aye.
Aye. Opposed, no. Mr. Stewart, you are recognized to present
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:07
your bill as amended. Yes, thank you. And this will be Amendment No. 5. The other four are engrossed in the bill, so just the last one there. As I was saying, Arkansas has been a target of funeral protests in the last several years. We've had at least six different occasions where on military people and then at Bill Gwotny's funeral there was also a protest. Several states have addressed this. The last one was in Arizona when they had the shooting here about a month ago.
They ran a new bill to extend their limits out to 300 foot. That gave me the idea to do this. Look back at our statute and we only had a 150 foot buffer zone. So what we've done in here, and Representative Edwards has helped me, and he and I together kind of have a vested interest. Together we've served 56 years in the military. So we are kind of near and dear to our heart. We've gone through and defined funeral. We're wanting to make this thing as airtight as possible.
So I just had the idea, and he had all the brains to go with it. So we have gone through and looked at all of the different circuit courts, 8th Circuit, 6th Circuit, 4th Circuit look at all their rulings and try to tighten this thing up so it will be airtight we have defined the funeral we have in paragraph B on the first page there we have limited the scope of the processional so it does not include all the roads and streets etc on the next page
we have extended it to 300 foot and then we even put in In paragraph C, toward the bottom of the page on the regular bill, if available, a law enforcement agency may provide any protester with assistance in locating a protest site that would comply with this section. Give them assistance in doing an orderly protest. Over on your amendment, we also redefined the funeral again to say in which the family of the deceased has a personal stake in memorializing and honoring the deceased
and the desire to be able to mourn in peace during the ceremony or memorial service. And then down on paragraph 2, we put a little extra in on Pickett. Without authorization from the family of the deceased, you could have a favorable demonstration at a funeral. So if the family agrees to the demonstration, if it's a military honoring or honor guard or et cetera, that's fine. This is when the family does not want the protesters there.
And at this time, we'll take questions. Thank you, Mr. Stewart. Mr. Edwards, would you like to add anything? I think he did
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
4:10
a fine job. I think he did, too. Thank you. Any questions from the audience? Representative Walker. MR. It looks like I'm the one who asked
most of the questions. I guess that's okay. I know you were. But the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, first of all, I don't like to
see people picketing in front of funerals. It's just something that seems a little wrong with that. But my own personal preference is not the governing standard of implementation of the First Amendment. The First Amendment says that the right to peacefully protest or to petition your government for redress of grievances for various things shall not be abridged.
And I'm aware of a recent history where people sought to limit protests of civil rights advocates who sought to eliminate discrimination in lunchrooms and in schools and in other places. I hope we are not just simply enacting and proposing legislation to make us feel good address everything that we think we would like to see implemented.
I don't know that this is necessary. I mean, it's certainly probably not constitutional. I don't see how the state can limit the First Amendment or whether it should. And the Founding Fathers of the country made it very clear that the right to protest is fundamental and they didn't they didn't limit it to to any particular place or thing so I just have a problem I understand that you know a military people deserve honor and I think that others deserve honor too from time to
time and and I don't think that a law should be executed simply because it's It's something that someone doesn't like or likes. I mean, the right is fundamental, and we should respect the right. And Representative Stewart, I really respect you and John, Representative Edwards. And I know that you all want to do good things, but I mean, I wonder, can you explain why
this is constitutional, and two, why it's necessary? And three, Wyatt does nothing more than make you feel good by having some people 30 feet away or 100 feet away with a picket sign. I mean, how does that advance the cause of government or justice or the First
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
7:04
Amendment? Well, Representative Walker, number one, I am glad you're here because I think you have very well described some of the struggles that I've had
with this particular bill. It's one of the reasons why there have been five amendments to this bill. And one of the concerns I expressed to Representative Stewart when the initial draft was extending 300 feet and an hour, the initial bill had 300 feet and an hour limitation on either side of a service, And I felt personally that that was overly broad for what was trying to be accomplished here.
And so that's when I asked Representative Stewart if we could look at trying to narrowly tailor the bill to a more keep the time to 30 minutes and then extend the distance out only to those areas that are directly, this is another one of the amendments, to the ingress and egress of the entrance of either where a funeral or burial service was.
I further wanted to clarify that streets, roads, and sidewalks and other public places were clearly not defined as a funeral. There have been some statutes in some other states that have been struck down by the 8th Circuit, for example, dealing with the, there was one statute that was struck down because they had a provision in there
that essentially made the entire funeral procession route part of the zone that was protected from picketing. And the court held there that this floating zone made it very difficult for anybody to be able to know when it was safe or proper to pick it or not proper to pick it, and therefore it was just so overly broad. So we have attempted to in these amendments to make it plain that all of those areas
are specifically left out of the law. We've also wanted previous ordinances across the country and statutes have been struck down because they did not make it clear whose interest was being protected. In this case, we're clarifying that the interest we're trying to protect as far as the family, it is the family's interest we're trying to protect that they can mourn in peace
outside of this 30-minute zone and 300 feet. And I will confess to you this is a very difficult issue for me, but I think we've tailored it about as tightly as we can tailor it. And I do think it's an open question. I know that the different circuits, I think the Sixth Circuit has upheld a statute similar to this, And so there is a lot of disagreement among the circuits, but we're trying to come up with something that we believe can work.
Mr. Chairman, may I have a
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
10:40
follow-up, please? You may. Now, I don't understand why people would protest at a funeral. I want to say that to you. I don't understand that. But having said that, I don't understand why people protest every time they protest. So the standard for protest and regulation of protest shouldn't be whether I or some other citizen understands or likes.
The purpose of a petition of a picket is to educate people to a point of view and to allow those persons who observe the picketing to make a judgment about what's an issue. I guess the most unpopular person, I don't know, maybe I've been the running, but the most unpopular person at a funeral would be Hitler. And I would think that maybe somebody would want to picket Hitler if he were a Hitler-like person here.
And you would certainly, I'm sure you would find popular support for being able to allow pickets up close to wherever a Hitlerian person is without interference. So, you know, the rule that applies to Hitler has to apply to everybody else in America, as I understand it, in this kind of situation. So I don't understand. And in this situation, it will,
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
12:04
I mean, everyone would be treated, and this is not specifically limited to, like, military funerals.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
12:10
But I understand it does. But the 300 feet distinction also bothers me because we still do have lingering problems from the past, and sometimes the only way that they can be brought to the public's attention is by public exposure. And if you say that in order for me to protest unfair activity in the state capitol, I have to be 300 feet away from the state capitol, or 300 feet away from Walmart, or 300 feet away from Jiffy Mart,
in order to protest, you're, in effect, limiting my opportunity to advance my cause, whatever that cause may be, of educating people to what I see. And so when you seek to put restrictions that are on the bill, it really causes some serious problems. And I don't think that the Eighth Circuit would approve this. Of course, you're saying, well, let's see. But why do we have to always just go and do things that are unnecessary?
I mean, we sometimes make mountains out of molehills by the legislation that we enact. And that legislation, which may have the purpose that you see here, that can then be used to repress me as I seek to try to make government better, as I seek to try to have, for instance, more black people on the Transportation Commission, for instance. I mean, if we want to pick it there, you may say, well, we got this, and it restricts you. If I want to have women somewhere, some women want to pick it.
I mean, you know, you don't want to just do this simply because it feels good or some people don't like the fact that they are being interfered
with. I mean, we all have to endure that. And those are my speeches, and I apologize.
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
14:05
faith. Well, and, again, Representative Walker, again, I've struggled with these same issues, and you make a good argument.
I also think there's an argument that could be made that a funeral is a unique circumstance that's different from any other
Speaker 13
14:30
things that we do. And sometimes some of the signs that many of these protesters have
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
14:40
used in the past have been signs that are extolling the name of the Lord for inventing IEDs.
and you may have a person that is deceased because of an IED. And I'm very sensitive to what you said about limiting or preventing someone from getting their message out. And I feel that if we, when you look at churches in Arkansas or you look at cemeteries in Arkansas and the roads leading to them, that there would be ample opportunity before the 30-minute time limit
to get your message out and then just move a little bit further away once you get within the 30-minute window. And that's what we're trying to accomplish here. But as I've told Representative Stewart, this is a very, Mr. Chairman, this has been a tough issue for me as well. But I'm hoping that we've tried to take a bill and clarify and provide some protections that the law currently didn't have regarding the First Amendment.
and still give people the right to get their message out, but to also acknowledge that, you know, funerals are significant events in the life of the family members and just to give them a little bit of a time of peace. Well, Mr. Edwards, you and Representative Stewart, you've got
about seven members who have questions, so let's see who's next. We've got Representative Hammer on the list. Would you just, and
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
16:29
I think you addressed this a while ago, but if I may, a couple questions.
Are there any federal guidelines that this is patterned after, and does it come up to the same standards without exceeding the standards of any federal guidelines that have been referenced in those court decisions, like the 300 feet or the time frames? The 300-foot has been
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
16:50
upheld in several of the circuit courts of appeal. The one was struck down in the 8th Circuit, but it was struck down because of the rolling processional. And so we've taken that part out, trying to strengthen our law up.
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
17:05
But the 300-foot has been held constitutional in several of the circuit
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
17:10
courts. Okay, and I'm sorry, go ahead. this doesn't interfere with the private property owner rights that are outside of the zone is that correct no it should not I'd just like to make a comment as a pastor and as a chaplain I've had the honor of conducting military funerals and to quote a wise book
it says to everything there is a season And while it is that we allow a certain degree of tolerance, I think also that we need to make wise decisions in what we allow and the guidelines in which we do
allow. And with that, I'd like to make a motion at a proper time, please. Thank you, Representative
Hamber. We have someone ahead of you for that motion right now. But Representative Rice, you're recognized for a
question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. preface this by saying it's a sad commentary
for our society to even have to address this. We all believe in freedom of speech. Am I correct in understanding this does not stop demonstrations? No, it allows an orderly demonstration.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
18:20
It just moves them back to 300 foot to give that and 30 minutes prior to and 30 minutes after the ceremony so they have ample time to do their
protest. Would you agree that every state restricts protest in some way?
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
18:39
There are a number of states. I can't say about every state. And there are states that have ordinances and statutes on the book that range as far as 500 feet away and an hour away. Some have 200. You know, there's not a, maybe this gets a little bit back to Representative Hammer's question, I don't know if there's a quote-unquote set standard. And, again, what we're trying to do here, I mean, there's two very important, I think, interests involved,
is doing our best with the First Amendment and doing our best for the families. And I'm hoping that this meets those interests.
And I said restricts, I meant to say guidelines, because I think there are guidelines in probably every state for protest. And I would just remind us that this is not Walmart that we're protesting or having things at. This is not the state capital. This is defined as a funeral. And I appreciate the work on this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
19:43
Thank you, Mr. Rice. Mr. Gillum, you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Does this bill in any way, shape, form, or fashion prevent somebody from protesting? No. Thank you very much. Appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Gilliam. Mr.
Powers, you recognize? Good. Mr. Steele. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Everybody's always laughing at my short microphone.
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
20:13
Just to be clear about the, I know I'm a little sick right now, I sound a little bit like Doc Gaskell, Just to be clear about what the standard here is, Representative Edwards, what we're trying to do here is the Supreme Court has said we need some kind of content-neutral statute. Is that correct? That's correct. And you mentioned several times you talked about tailoring this statute. The criteria we have to meet here is to narrowly tailor something that meets a significant
state interest. Is that true? That's correct. And have the courts, from what you've read, determined that regulating these kind of protests is a significant state interest? In other words, that the state does have an interest in assuring
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
21:01
proper burials? The courts have, but again, I want to be real plain to this
committee that there are many different opinions that are out there. This is not, I mean, and ultimately someday these issues will most likely be decided by the Supreme Court. and it would be very disingenuous to me to say there's unanimous opinion across the board.
What I am saying to this committee is that we've tried to the best of our ability to tailor this in such a way that we think will meet the real interest of protecting a family and helping to make sure that people have their First Amendment right to picket and protest. Okay. And
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
21:41
Representative Stewart and yourself have, through amendments and other processes, tailored this as best you can to meet the constitutionality. Well, you know,
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
21:50
he'll probably never let me co-sponsor another bill with him again, but that's what we've attempted to do.
Speaker 62
21:57
Thank you, Representative. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
22:07
you, Mr. Steele. Mr. Deffenbaugh? Thank you. Mr. Nichols? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Are you just basically trying to regulate the
time, place, and the manner, I believe the First Amendment cases kind of give the states or the federal government within the First Amendment to do some regulations of speech, but you just cannot exclude it totally,
but are you just trying to
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
22:36
regulate the time, place, and the manner? So we're trying to narrowly tailor all those issues to what we believe is a reasonable approach for both families and to protect the First Amendment. And, again, Representative Stewart mentioned this, but we even added a provision in the amendment that, you know, would ultimately give the family, each family, the decision to decide if they wanted to allow any kind of, you know, protest or picketing or not.
I mean, because that's the real interest and intent of this bill is to, again, help the families have their moment of privacy and allow someone who has a point of view to be able to express that point of view. And
hopefully that's what we're doing here. Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Any additional questions from the
committee? Seeing none, is there anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against this bill?
Seeing no one, what's the pleasure of the committee? Oh, I'm sorry. I recognize Representative Shepard. Would you still like to make a motion?
I'd like to move. Do pass. Committee has been recommended by Representative Shepard. Do pass as amended. Are there any additional questions? Seeing none. All those in favor of House Bill 1207 do pass as amended. Signify by saying aye. Aye.
Opposed, no. Ayes have it. Representative Stewart, Representative Edwards, congratulations. You have passed House Bill 1207 as amended. Is anyone here to run House Bill 1209? Vice Chair Wilkins is running a bill on another committee. He'll be back shortly. We're going to skip over him for right now. Representative Patterson is also not going to run his bill today.
That leaves House Bill 1305, which is my bill. Mr. Powers, would you take the chair so I can run
Members, House Bill 1305 is a bill
that I'm running on behalf of the Arkansas Bar Association. It is simply to clean up the code with regard to this issue. In Arkansas, court judgments constitute a lien of 10 years on real property. through a process, and you'll have to excuse my Latin, but through a process that I think is called serifacis,
and someone much more learned in Latin can correct me, but seeing that, I'm going to say I'm right. But
through that process, you can extend your lien on real property for 10 years.
You can also file that lien against the real property of the judgment debtor in additional counties through the same process. What this bill does is clarifies that if you're going to extend that lien beyond the 10 years,
that you have to do so prior to the 10 years running out. So you can't come on year 11 and try to extend it further than the 10 years. It also clarifies that if you're going to extend the lien in additional counties on real property that you have to provide certain notice and it also has to be done before the 10-year, original 10-year lien runs out. So it's a simple cleanup just to
clarify what is current practice in Arkansas.
And I'd be happy to take any questions,
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
27:20
Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Williams. Committee have any questions for Representative Williams? Seeing none, anyone in the audience wish to speak for or against the bill? No one speaking for or against.
Speaker 76
27:36
Mr. Williams, are you closed for your bill? I would appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Thank you, sir. What's the will of the committee? Representative Rogers?
Do pass. Thank you. Representative Rogers has presented a motion to do pass. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed. Thank you, Mr. Williams. Your bill has passed the House Judiciary. Thank you, committee.
Mrs. Tyler here, someone here to run the House Bill 1318 or 1352 for Mrs.
Tyler. Senate Bill 4 for David Johnson.
Anyone here who runs Senate Bill 4? How about House Bill 10 or 1015 for Representative Woods? I'll commit if you don't mind staying for a little while. I would sing for you. But I'm sure there are some folks coming to run a few bills.
If you don't mind, we'll just take a small break here for just a few minutes until we But we have a few people who said they'd like to run the bill. Let's make sure they don't – they will come. If you just hold one minute, we'll have someone here shortly, I believe.
Thank you for allowing us to have a break. I'm going to try to move things along the agenda as much as possible, so we won't have full agenda toward the end of the session. I also want to recognize we have a number
of home school students from Heber Springs, I believe, is that correct, who are with us today. Thank you guys for being here and welcome to House Judiciary. Representative Nichols, you're here to run House Bill 1318, is
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
35:36
that correct? Yes, Mr. Chairman. You are recognized to run House Bill 1318. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. The reason that I went over to ask Representative And Tyler, if I could run this bill for her, I've had this issue that this bill deals with with a constituent whose son is incarcerated.
He missed by one day getting out of prison in December. But the rules are very strict. You know, you got to be on that day. So he didn't get out in December. Well, he's scheduled to get out now by the rules and the law on Saturday. Well, the Department of Corrections doesn't process people on Saturday. So Monday is a holiday, and so he will not get out of prison until Tuesday.
And so I think this bill is designed to recognize those situations like when people work on holidays. If a holiday falls on a Saturday or Sunday, they may make the holiday on a Friday or the following Monday. But anyway, you know, I guess inmates don't have that many advocates out there, but this mother wants to see her son as soon as possible out of prison, and I think this is a good bill, and it recognizes that reality,
and Ms. Tyler is here to also answer any questions that any committee might have. Ms. Tyler, please
identify yourself and who you're with, and you're
Speaker 96
37:01
welcome to make any comments you'd like. I'm Donna Tyler with the Department of Correction. And I
Speaker 98
37:08
think that Representative Nichols did an excellent job in explaining how this came to be. And there is the possibility that this could have been done through policy of the Board of Corrections. But I think everybody at the Department of Corrections, the Board, and probably everybody at the Statehouse would feel more comfortable if there was an avenue in law for this to
take place. Thank you, Ms. Tyler. Members, any questions? Representative Rice, you recognized for a
question? Representative Nichols, it's not going to change the sentence of any of the inmates as far as any time, serious time. We're talking about two, three days at the most. Is that right? I'll answer
Speaker 98
37:50
for Representative Nichols if you'll indulge me. No, it won't. What it will mean is that we can release somebody on the last business day, say a Friday,
instead of waiting until Monday. or in the case that we had that Representative Nichols talked about on Martin Luther King weekend, we waited until Tuesday. And we hope that if we are able to release somebody on Friday early enough, maybe we can bring someone else in from the county jails on that same Friday.
This would actually be a cost savings to the state, too, correct?
Speaker 98
38:22
It just makes sense, and there's always the possibility that we can bring somebody else in. I mean, when we're 1,700 backed up in the county jails, we are looking for anything to maybe bring somebody up.
And, I mean, I know one bed doesn't make a lot of difference, but it would to a
Speaker 104
38:40
county sheriff. All right. Thank you for your answer. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion at the proper
time. Thank you, Mr. Rice. Members, any additional questions? Anyone in the audience wants to speak for or against the bill?
Seeing no one in the audience, Representative Nichols, have you closed for your bill?
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
39:00
I'm closed for the bill, and I appreciate Mr. Rice's motion. Mr. Rice, you recognize motion.
Mr. Rice has made a motion of do pass. All those in favor of passing House Bill 1318 indicate by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr. Nichols. You have passed Representative Tyler's bill. Thank you. I see Representative Woods has made it. Welcome, Representative Woods. I know you've got a big committee over in public health going on. You're recognized to run House Bill 1010, I believe. That's what you want to run? I think you have a – is there an amendment? We have an amendment to that bill as well.
Unknown speaker
39:38
We're going to pass it out right now. Thank you.
Representative Woods, let's see if we can get the amendment on your bill
before we get started here. This is amendment number one, correct? That is correct. Members, Representative Woods has an amendment to House Bill 1010. What's the pleasure of the commitment? Representative Gilliam, you're recognized.
Speaker 109
40:51
I make a motion, do pass, for adding the amendment.
Representative Gilliam has made a motion to allow Representative Woods to add Amendment 1 to House Bill 1010. All those in favor of amending House Bill 1010 with Amendment 1 indicate by saying aye. Opposed, no. Representative
Woods, you are recognized to present House Bill 1010 as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, committee members, and thank you, Representative
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
41:17
Gilliam. public health is still going and I have to be back here in a little bit and I appreciate you fitting me in and just about every major
piece of legislation has gone through seems like judiciary and public health in session it's been very difficult getting over here but I've been approached by several legislators that have made recommendations to add in not just parent but custodian or legal guardian which I did and then I was contacted by Department of Human Services who asked for this most recent amendment which I appreciate the bill is pretty
straightforward there's already laws on the book that that deals with the graffiti in juvenile court it's already there what I'm trying to do is just is put in another court system this was brought to me by my city attorney this This is for a constituent. It's pretty straightforward. I'd love to get this off your calendar. We would, too, Mr. Woods, one way or the other. I would appreciate your vote, and
I'll just leave it at that. Thank you.
Thank you. Representative Powers, you're recognized
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
42:35
for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Representative Woods. I'll try to hasten your departure. I understand this is a civil procedure you're trying to go through, but how do we know? I mean, is there going to be a case proving that this child committed this criminal mischief, I guess,
This kind of would be the catch-all on it. Or, you know, the burden of proof is different in both
Speaker 113
43:11
of these cases. I mean, in both these instances, in a juvenile court and a civil court. What are you looking to do to prove that
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
43:23
the child did this and then find the parents, custodians, or guardians or legal guardians $5,000?
And to make you understand my question is, you know, in a juvenile court, if he committed the criminal mischief, more than likely, I think in certainty, a judge would order restitution, say it's $1,000. But there's either going to be a plea or there's going to be evidence presented beyond a shadow of a doubt or beyond a reasonable doubt that the child did in fact commit the crime.
Speaker 115
44:09
And there's a different standard here, and, you know, I'm not sure
Speaker 113
44:19
sure in every case that a parent is culpable for a night of carousing. And otherwise, I understand
Speaker 116
44:27
your graffiti problem, but there seems to be a little bit of
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
44:32
a double standard here. from the delinquency side of it and the civil side.
Any comments among that, about
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
44:45
that? Not too, probably not enough to suffice your question, but one of the questions I had was what's the need for doing this, of course, and it was to, the feedback that I got was that it would just kind of spread out the cases we have if we had a graffiti problem our circumstance or an issue come up related to graffiti would be
dealt with in Fayetteville and then this this could bring it home to the the cities kind of spread it out and we don't have to wait for a longer calendar period time to wait for it to be heard and you know in another city so I think it just has to do with bringing it back to the local law. I'm trying to, when I talked to my city attorney, you know, he said that the cases would be very few and far between, and I think the juvenile code, I believe it's $10,000, is
up to the dollar amount, and I didn't want to interfere with that, and that didn't have a whole lot to do with your question, but I think it's more just to kind of let different courts be able to handle it. I'm not for raising the fine or raising the ceiling or making it harder on anybody, but we just kind of want to spread it out a little bit and not have to worry about setting the date in Fayetteville and have anything done in a different city and be able to bring it more locally and have it taken care of.
Speaker 115
46:21
Well, I'll tell you where my question comes from. A few years ago, we had a child arrested at a local store for shoplifting a pen, a pencil pen. I think it was like $1.49, whatever.
Speaker 113
46:38
There's already a law in the state books, a civil law, and I'm assuming it's still there. This has been about eight, nine, ten years ago, that they got the pen back. They got the $1.49 back, but the store, and I won't mention names,
sent a letter from their attorney telling the parents they owed $200 for this child's shoplift in Walmart. Now, you know, the history of that child, that's the truth. I mean, and that's why I'm having the question, posing the question to you. It seems like, you know, if a kid goes out and commits $500 worth of damage, and in juvenile court they pay $500 worth of the judge orders them to pay that restitution,
And now we have a civil case getting $5,000 from parents that might have done the best they could. And then if they weren't convicted, and that's not the word, they weren't adjudicated delinquent in that court, now there's a difference in the burden of proof in that civil court. And I'm not sure that that jibes to
Speaker 115
47:49
me, and that's why I'm obviously not hastening your departure with these questions.
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
47:59
You know, I'm not really sure what to say. I know that you have pretty good background in this area, and I really don't have the right answer for what you're inquiring about. The dollar amount I know would seem high, and we're putting it on the parent for being responsible for their child, and I understand that. I think a lot of these cases are probably, if this helps at all, probably $250, no more than $1,000 is what most of the cases are for removing it.
Not that that answers your question specifically, but I do understand. And I'd love to make some calls after this morning and do the best I can to help answer some
Speaker 113
48:52
of those questions. Well, I understand that you're trying to help constituents with your graffiti problem, I suppose, is the gist of this. But, you know, in a juvenile court, a judge can find the child and the parent.
He can order the restitution for the amount of damages, you know, and if he is adjudicated delinquent, then, you know, that part of it certainly would be taken care
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
49:20
of. So thank you for your answers. Thank you, Mr.
Powers. Mr. Wright, you recognize? Thank you,
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
49:29
Mr. Chairman. My question to you is what bothers me is the word custodian, and do you think that that may be overly broad
as to who we may be imposing civil liability upon who may, a child may just be living with them? And that's my concern is that that is overly broad and I want to
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
49:58
get your thoughts on that. I think we're okay and I understand, but custodian, I don't have the legal definition for custodian on me right now,
but I think we're okay. I really, to be honest with you, I think we're okay with parent, you know, and it's just kind of evolved and snowballed and it's just kind of grown. So maybe some of the legislators that asked me on this committee to add that might be able to help out a little bit more. But I think we're okay, and I think the court would probably pay a lot of attention to the relationship of the child and who they're with.
And I don't think there's going to be a whole lot of fault with somebody if the child's just staying with somebody for a weekend or a month. I would have to believe that our courts are
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
51:05
better than that. That would be my answer. thank you mr. Deffenbaugh you recognize thank you mr. chair this is probably a question you know after several years in the public schools I still don't really see the why of this bill because we've we've almost raised a society not
everybody but a society of youngsters that one point the finger somebody else blame somebody else looking for you know where they have poor teachers poor parents and I really have a problem with the youngster themselves not taking the responsibility I just like I said I just think we've we've we wish you know we've
got a lot of youngsters that are looking for a way out and and there's even And believe it or not, there's even some youngsters that might be estranged from their parents or get mad and just go do something like that to cost them, you know. So I guess my question is why put the blame on the parents? Because you've got some great parents and you've got some kids that do some sorry things. So
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
52:18
that's my question. Thanks. Well, to answer your question, it's either the parent is going to have to pay for it or the taxpayers.
I mean, it's hard to budget for five, six cases a month. It might be anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000 or $4,000 a month times 12. It's hard to budget for that. And then you've got to employ somebody to go around town taking them down. Then you've got to have the chemicals and the equipment. It's a lot of money. It's got to come from somewhere. And I know you have a big heart, and I think most people do. It's just about accountability.
Is that all, Mr. Deffenbaugh? I've got you on the list, Representative Walker. We've got
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
53:05
two people ahead of you. Representative Schlinkert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Representative Woods, this bill, along with your amendment, actually doesn't change the current law except to change the words the parents to a parent, custodian, or legal guardian, and also includes the words damage or deface, which would mean graffiti.
Do I understand that? That is correct. Under your amendment regarding Representative Wright's comments about custodian, your amendment seems to indicate that custodian might have meant the Department of Human Services being in custody, I mean, a young person being in custody of the DHS. So this amendment and this bill doesn't change anything other than those words that
are in your bill and amendment.
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
54:04
Is that correct? That is correct. I was just asked to Department of Human Services just asked if I could just clarify it just for their own so they could sleep at
night. Okay. MR. That is correct. Thank you. MS. Thank you, Representative Schlinkert. Representative
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
54:29
Rogers? MS. Representative Schlinkert, ask me a question. MS. Thank you. Representative
Walker? MR. Thank you. The term custodian being undefined could include, could it not, an 18-year-old sister
or brother who is looking after a child while a parent is at work? Would that be the case, or a 17-year-old child, since many parents are in one-parent
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
54:57
families? My personal opinion, I don't think the prosecutor or the judge would see it that way. That's just
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
55:03
my personal opinion. This imposes civil liability, so it's not a prosecutor in this situation.
That's correct. All right. So in order to impose civil liability, is there, do you understand that it would
be up to a jury to determine whether a person is a custodian? I believe so. Well, that means then we are subjecting the
whole process to jury trials, which are costly and time-consuming and probably more expensive than the graffiti itself to be removed. Would you not think so? I don't think so.
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
55:45
I think that at the end of the day, I think it's the amount of cases involved that it's still about accountability, taxpayer money, not spending revenues that cities need on unfortunate circumstances and
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
56:04
incidents like this and being more efficient with our money, I think. I
guess the next question is, do you have, are you able to share with the committee the expenses that normally have been expended in any given year or month or week for addressing this problem that may be attributed to the public?
Sure. I believe. Do you have some data? I mean, that's. Ballpark. Not a data sheet. No, I don't. Well, I mean, I don't want to guess, but, I mean, do you have an economic impact to show how this is going to help us or hurt us? Other than, you know, maybe it's going to
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
56:53
help, maybe it's going to hurt. Well, each town and each city would benefit in its own right. I would think your larger cities, I think Portsmouth, Springdale, Rogers, Bentonville, Little Rock, Conway,
your larger cities would definitely benefit from this. I mean, you're talking $250 to $1,000 a case, four to five a month, plus the salary of the individual going out and cleaning this up. So, you know, $4,000 times 12, so you're looking at $48 plus $35 salary. So, I mean, anywhere from $85 to $90, probably upwards of $100,000 you might be. It just depends on the city or the population and the amount of cases.
But I would think for probably four cases a month,
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
57:40
probably $100,000 a year. You have no empirical data to support that premise, do you? Verbal data with my
city attorney. Any additional questions from
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
57:56
the members? Representative Powers? Finally, custodian is, again, that's bothering. On a regular occasion,
Speaker 115
58:02
a judge will grant temporary custody in a court case to whoever,
and for whatever reasons the parents or legal guardians aren't capable, and it may be for a few weeks, a few months. Who do you sue? Do you sue the parent or do you sue the person the judge has assigned temporary custody? Because that happens a lot in the juvenile court world, these temporary custody situations.
I'm not an attorney. I couldn't answer that. Okay. Not a judge either. I appreciate your
Speaker 76
58:53
truthfulness there. Representative Fowler, the lawyer would sue both of them. Maybe I should ask an attorney, and then you get the answer from an attorney. Just sue everybody. Thank you.
Thank you. Any additional questions from the members? Anyone in the audience who wants to speak for or against the bill? Let's see. I'm sorry.
We have Kristen Harper from DHS signed up. I'm sorry, would you come to the microphone and identify yourself? I couldn't hear that. Oh, I understand. You're just making sure you didn't get
Speaker 109
59:32
sued. I understand what you're doing. But go ahead and say that so we can. Good
Speaker 154
59:36
morning. My name is Kristen Harper. I'm the Administrator of Policy for the Division of Children and Family Services.
And I did sign in only to ensure that the amendment was, in fact, included, to which Representative Woods referred earlier. So thank you.
Speaker 7
59:49
Thank you, Ms. Harper. Any questions for
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
59:52
Ms. Harper? Thank you very much. Yeah, just for the record, Chairman Williams indicated that you wanted to be sure that you weren't sued, meaning that you wanted to be sure the DHS wasn't sued when it was the custodian. Correct. And DHS is the more frequent custodian than anybody else in the state, isn't it?
I would think so. So only a handful of people would be affected. I mean, while DHS would be the most affected, but it's being excluded from having to address the issue of erasing graffiti. I would echo Representative
Speaker 160
1:00:27
Woods in that I'm not an attorney, don't have the definition, and I would imagine that the term custodian is, in fact, referring to the legal custodian. All right. Thank you. Thank
Speaker 99
1:00:35
you, Mr. Walker. Any additional questions for Ms.
Harper? Thank you, Ms. Harper. Thank you. Anyone else in the audience want to speak for or against the bill?
Yes, sir. You may come to the podium and identify yourself and
Speaker 162
1:01:01
let us know who you're with. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. Thank you, Mr. Chair and our representatives. My name is David Koenig. I'm a resident of the state of Arkansas, a taxpayer and an employee of Arkansas Craft in Moralton, Arkansas.
And I'd like to speak out against this. My sole premise as a parent is that if my child puts graffiti on any property of anybody's, my responsibility would have that child go and clean that off. And if he needs to buy chemicals and things like that, then he needs to go and work that off and get that off and not become a financial laborer to the state of Arkansas, but he should learn and restitute of his own doings to those that he's offended. Thanks, Mr. Koenig.
Am I pronouncing that correctly? Yes, sir. Thank you. Any questions from Mr.
Koenig members? Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else in the audience want to
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:02:07
speak for or against this bill? Seeing none, what's the pleasure of the committee? I move that it does not pass. So that's do not pass, but I move that
it does not pass. Representative Walker has made a motion of do not pass.
That's a proper motion. Any discussion? All those in favor of not passing this amendment, So all those in favor that do not pass a motion will please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? No. No. Chair recognizes that the ayes have it. I have one request for a roll call. That's with Joan. Your side
Speaker 171
1:02:46
wins. You don't usually call a roll call when you win.
Thank you, Mr. Walker. After the
House Bill 1010 fails, we'll do not pass motion. Representative Woods, would you like to run House Bill 1015? Thank you. You're recognized to run House Bill
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
1:03:08
1015. I've really got to be back in committee, but let's see here. House Bill 1015, last time I was here, I was asked to get a fiscal impact on if there was a $250 fee that was mandated,
what if the individual couldn't pay the fine, how many beds are we taking up, how much jail space would it take, and the response that I got back from Sandy. Is Sandy here with sentencing? Okay. That there is a zero fiscal impact. This $250 fine, I would like for it to be mandatory. there's not a punishment they can't pay it, they just can't pay it but right now it's not being collected this money would go towards hiring more
personnel to help speed up the assessment process I do have other agencies here that would speak for it you've already heard the testimony I'd appreciate your vote, thank you I'm closed Any questions for Mr. Woods on House Bill 1015? Well I do I mean I hate to be the
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:04:15
one Mr. Walker, one second. I'm going to take
him to the order that I've got him. I've got Representative Nichols, then followed by
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:04:23
you, Mr. Walker. Representative Woods, it seems I remember the last time this bill was here, there were some discussions about if that $250 wasn't paid,
that that would convert that to a Class D felony. Is that – am I wrong about that? That
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
1:04:39
was the discussion, and there is no criminal penalty for not paying it, to answer your question. I
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:04:47
believe Mr. Cossort, I think, gave us that information. Is he in the
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
1:04:53
room? He is, but Brad, are you here? Okay. But I believe the sentencing was the one that answered the question for both Brad and I on that.
Representative Cossort, Representative Nichols would like to hear it from you. Would you please, I'm sorry, Mr. Cossort. Thank you for the election, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry.
MR. Would you state your name and
Speaker 177
1:05:18
identify who you're with for the record? MR. Brad Cazort with the Arkansas Crime Information Center. Representative Nichols, what I said last time, and we've had time to clarify it, there is a Class C felony for failure to comply with the assessment process, failure to register, failure to verify, failure to provide a change of address.
That Class C felony does not address any provisions for failure to pay costs. For example, in the sex offender bill, there's a mandatory DNA fee. There's no penalty provided in it for failure to pay that fee. That criminal penalty would not apply to failure to pay this. I assume it will be dealt with by a judge akin to
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:05:59
a probation fee. Well, it uses the term
Speaker 179
1:06:01
fine, mandatory fine. So it doesn't say fee or it doesn't say court cost. It says fine.
Well, that's the word. The current
Speaker 68
1:06:10
law already calls it a fine. Yes. But there is no provision in
Speaker 177
1:06:15
the criminal penalty section of the sex offender registry that everything that fits in that Class C penalty does not include nonpayment. This does not fit into that criminal penalty
Speaker 181
1:06:26
provision, if I've made that clear. Well, I'm just
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:06:33
not, I don't see how things change from the first presentation to now
other than it's not a felony to refuse to pay this. And I think the cost aspect of it dealt with if people end up going to jail, maybe have served a sentence already and they just didn't pay the $250 and then that would generate additional jail time. I believe that
Speaker 177
1:07:01
was the gist of the discussion at that time, and upon further review, having a chance to look under the hood, reviewing the criminal penalty statute, it does not
apply, and the section does not apply to the nonpayment of a fine. So this would not fit as a Class C felony. Okay. Thank you,
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:07:22
Mr. Gisort. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Mr.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:07:27
Walker, are you recognized? Well, wait a minute. There are different ways that you get fans. I mean, if a person doesn't pay the cost, the judge can hold that person in contempt of court. Isn't that right, Mr. Cazare? Director, that's certainly correct, the same way you can deal with a probation. Let me finish.
Now, if a judge can hold a person in contempt of court, that means that the judge can cause that person to be incarcerated for nonpayment of the fine. Isn't that correct? That's correct, but it's
not a Class C felony. All right. But nonetheless, a person stays in jail as long as the judge wants them to stay for nonpayment of a fine. That's up to the judge. That's correct. All right. Now, I was concerned a little bit about Representative Wood's statement
that, well, if people can't pay, then they can't pay.
Well, then if they can't pay, why impose it? I mean, if there's not going to be any effect and they're going to be told, if you can't pay, you just don't pay, then what's the importance of having this bill in the first place? Judges
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
1:08:35
need to get the message that they need to be collecting for this fine. And there's no excuse to why there's close to 1,000 new registered sex offenders a year and there's only being about $5,000 to $10,000 being generated to go into this pool, this victim's fund.
and it's not acceptable. And so we need to
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:08:54
send a message that this needs to be collected, and that's what this bill does. So
really this is not directed at the offender. It's directed at the judges, and you're dissatisfied with the judges, and you want to send
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
1:09:11
them a message. Both. I think both. I think anybody that's destroyed another individual's life for the lives of other families should have to pay this fine.
I was for doubling this fine, but I thought that we would just leave the fine or the fee fine where it's at and just make sure that the judges are imposing it. Mr. Walker, are you done? Yes, sir. Any additional
questions, members? No. Someone from the Sentencing Commission
at the end of the table, I'm sorry, would you identify yourself? Ralphie, would you like to say something?
Lindsey Williams
Unverified
1:09:52
Can you hear me? My name is Lindsey Williams. I'm with the Sentencing Commission. I'm filling in for Sandy. I apologize for my voice. I'm getting over the flu. I think it was Representative Nickel that asked the question about these people just going to jail and the felony, the Class C felony. We actually spoke with the Department of Community Corrections and generally we found out that judges don't just revoke probation for non-payment of fines alone.
This goes with also with hearing examiners and parolees who violate a condition of their probation or parole which non-payment of the fine, I think we had determined that would kind of fall under that. In these cases generally the judges will just extend the probation and then make a note of it and in a report and hand that over to the prosecutors in other instances of violations of probation or parole. That was
Speaker 191
1:10:48
all that I had. Thank you, Ms. Williams.
Speaker 70
1:10:52
Ms. Nichols, do you have any questions based on that answer?
No. Anyone have a question of Mrs.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:11:00
Williams? My question is why is it that we always depend on what somebody says? I mean, the person from
the Department of Corrections is here. I mean, I don't know that there are any data collection sources which would allow you to arrive at the conclusion you have reached, what judges do. I don't know that there is a study of what judges do. Judges are, we have at least 150 of them and their practices vary according to their predilections
and other things. So there is no uniformity of practice. Would you not agree
Speaker 195
1:11:35
with that? I would. I'm just reporting the
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:11:38
information that we received from one person yes, and it's not capable of being quantified Or objectified is it?
to your question. Thank you much. Thank you, Mr. Walker We have mr. Robert Combs signed up to speak against the bill. Mr. Combs you recognize
Speaker 197
1:12:05
After time, and I'm speaking against the
Robert Combs
Unverified
1:12:19
bill, we've spoke in front of the committee before. The reason I'm speaking against this bill is because it removes the discretion from the judge on placing undue hardship not only on the convicted offender but on the support network, the family members,
who are also victims of this person's offense. If the person can't pay the fine at the time of sentencing, they probably will not be able to pay the fine during their incarceration and once they're out, as I understood Mrs. Williams saying, that the judge usually does not consider this an offense worth reincarcerating but could. Maybe I misunderstood. One of the things that I heard Representative Wood say was that anyone who destroys a life should pay this fine.
And that goes to the heart of what Arkansas time after time stands for, the labeling of sex offenders. Now, remember, the sex offenders could be on the sex offender registry. They could be subject to this fine if they're convicted of breastfeeding in public, not necessarily ruining a life, but feeding a life. If they're convicted of public urination, these fines would also apply to these people as well as violent sexual predators, the level four offenders. So when we hear the word sex offenders, don't think of violent sexual predators, which is less than 10% of the registry.
Think of everyone who's on the sex offender registry from serial breastfeeders to violent sexual predators. Thank you, Mr. Combs. Any questions for Mr. Combs?
Seeing none, anyone else in the audience? Mr. Combs, thank you very much. Anyone else in the audience would like to speak for or against the bill? Seeing none, Representative Woods is closed for his bill. Any questions for Representative Woods? I'm sorry, Representative Woods, I thought you closed before you got up. I'm sorry. You welcomed us. I don't want
Speaker 117
1:14:07
history to repeat itself and do not pass.
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
1:14:16
We have a motion, I think, from Representative Rice. Okay, good. Well, this is pretty serious. And the governor mentioned in his state-of-the-state address, which I agree with, and there are certain types of offenses we need to make a top priority on when we're regarding jail time or just offenses in general. This is one of them. This isn't a game or joke.
I mean, I can bring down families and victims, and we can go until 2 in the afternoon on Thursday. But I respect this committee. I'll see everybody after this. I'm sure I'll see you on the House floor this afternoon. I don't want to have to do that. I would appreciate your help. This is pretty serious back home. I'd appreciate a good vote. Thank you. Mr. Woods is closed
for his bill. Let's pledge the committee. Representative Rice, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Recommend do pass. There's a motion do pass for House Bill 1015.
Any questions, discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor of do pass on House Bill 1015 signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, no. Congratulations, Mr.
Woods. You have passed House Bill 1015. It's another historic day getting a bill out of judiciary.
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
1:15:32
I don't know. Thank you, guys. Thank you very much. I appreciate the committee and your time. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Woods. We have Vice Chair Wilkins here to run House Bill 1244.
Speaker 204
1:15:47
I want to first apologize to the committee for being late. I was in the Transportation Committee with a little old bill that doesn't do much, and I thought I'd be in there five minutes, and we almost ended up having lunch.
I'd like to present House Bill 1244, which is a bill to really clean up the language, the repeal of this particular section of the law that regulates the amount of unsecured liability that a bail bond company can write. And basically, it's my understanding that it has no relevance in today's bail bond industry. The courts can issue a bond on a defendant, and that bond is made by a professional bail
bond company. And the court looks at the bond as being secured because the bail bond company guarantees that amount. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll be glad to attempt to answer some questions. I know there are some folks here who have much greater knowledge about this than I do who are here to speak for
Speaker 205
1:17:16
the bill. MR. Thank you, Vice Chair Wilkins.
I see Rosa Hammer for a question. MR. Thank you, sir.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:17:27
Could you give me an education as far as if we do away with this, what means or mechanisms are in place that if a bondsman goes out and issues a bond then and he, what assurances are there that he's going to be able to come through with his
Speaker 204
1:17:46
commitment if the person he has bonded out skips out? MR. That's an excellent question. Mr. Chairman, might I call Mr. Mundun to the table with me and he can give greater information.
My knowledge is limited, but I understand that bail bond companies already are bonded to a certain point to be able to guarantee that. Mr. Muldoon. Please state your name and tell
us who you're with. My name is John Muldoon. I'm with the Arkansas Professional Bail Association.
And in answer to your question, there is another bill that's being presented coming through the Senate side that has gotten out of the Senate, that will create a cap on the unpaid
forfeitures for bail bond companies. And what that is doing is creating a better tool for the board to go through and regulate the companies as they are. Mr. Hammer? How is that going to be a better
Speaker 29
1:18:49
tool if that cap is removed? Why is that going to be a better
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:18:53
tool? No, there will be a cap put in place on the unpaid forfeitures.
Once a judgment's entered against the bail bond company,
once the company meets that cap that's being proposed, they would be able to immediately suspend that license. Whereas right now, this is used as an auditing tool, the 1719-304. To my knowledge, it has not been utilized in the regulation end of it. It's a carryover law from the insurance department, and in 1993 the board was created by this legislative body.
It's, you know, as far as the unsecured amount of liability, we can write our secured aspect. There's not a cap on that, on what a secured bond is. The board still would have the right to come in and to audit the companies to see what standing they are in as far as financial and as to what is the collateral or who is indemnifying the bond itself. One more question. Go ahead, Ms. Hammer.
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:20:06
Thank you. Does this bill, and there's a series of these bills that are coming into place dealing with bondsmen, And I would like to hear from either one of you gentlemen, if you would, please, as far as your opinion on whether this takes discretion away from the court and places it more in favor of the bondsman to where the bondsman is gaining more control of the ultimate end, which is that individual is set free to get back out on the streets. Would you care to address that, please?
Yes, sir. This particular law
does not pertain to the courts or their abilities to regulate how the bonds are issued in their districts in regards to they still have the absolute right to disqualify any bondsman if they so choose to do so. This is in regards to the Bell Bond Licensing Board's ability, and the board is creating a stiffer, if you will, regulation that will be coming before you here shortly.
Mr. Hammer, any additional questions? Mr. Muldoon, one quick question from the Chair. Let's assume we pass this current bill
and we repeal this section and the bill that's coming before us fails to pass. What impact would that have
on your industry? It would not have an impact, although I do feel that Senate Bill 177, which is the bill that will be coming before you, it does not have any opposition from any members.
I know you guys have dealt with a lot with the bail bond industry. That's not good to say in this committee that has no opposition. Yes, sir. I understand. But to my knowledge, there's no opposition to the cap. It was a joint effort within the industry to create
that cap so the board would have a better ability to regulate. So if we repeal this section, and let's just have the hypothetical that the bill that's coming before us is not passed, there's no detrimental effect?
Is that what you're telling us? I don't believe so, no, sir. The bail bonds licensing board will still have the authority to regulate
Speaker 209
1:22:29
this area to make sure that bonds are not unsecured? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. They can go in. If
they feel that there's a detriment to a bond that's being ridden and they've had complaints or a court has contacted them, a judge specifically, that says that they feel like the company is out of control and writing bonds without getting any type of collateral, the board would still have the ability to investigate that.
So you believe somewhere else in the statute you have that authority? Yes, sir. Okay.
Speaker 213
1:23:01
Representative Eubanks? Representative Shepard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:23:06
When you refer to that there would be no detrimental impact if this bill was passed, the section was repealed, and the other bill does not make its way into law, I think you stated there would be no detrimental impact. What is the purpose of these regulations then?
And then you also stated, I think, that there would also be the governing board that would be overseeing this anyway. What would they be looking for? In other
Speaker 215
1:23:36
words, what are they trying to guard against? Ultimately, forfeiture actions are
the biggest things in our industry. That would be relevant to the communities that we work in and the courts that we work with. And the board would still have the ability to come in if it was brought to their attention, Let me be specific when I speak to forfeitures.
If a defendant fails to appear and the court takes action against the bonding company and he issues a forfeiture action, that company has to come before the court and they have a right to be questioned in regard to the bond and what's going on with it, things of that nature. Once the court decides to take that action and enter a judgment against the bail bond company, the court then can forward that to the bail bond board, and the board itself would take action from there for the collection of that money.
Speaker 217
1:24:30
And that's ultimately what it comes down
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:24:36
to. You recognize, Mr. Shepard? Go ahead. Follow-up. And this particular section and then the Senate bill that's making its way towards us, who does that protect? As I understand it, it protects the court and us as citizens of the state of Arkansas in being able to collect. Yes, sir. That's all the questions I have. Representative Nichols, you're recognized.
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:25:02
Then Representative Hammer and Walker. Representative Wilkins, I want to support your legislation, but I have some qualms about this. Since we've been referencing another bill, and Mr. Muldoon, who I've known for many more years and I want to admit, I
don't think he represents the board, he represents an association.
So I would feel more comfortable if the bill was pulled down until we deal with the Senate bill, so we'll all be on the same page. That's just right now I'd have a hard time writing that voting do pass just because of these questions that may be lingering out there that impact on the industry. So that's just
Speaker 204
1:25:56
my comment. Thank you, Representative Nichols. I have no problem with that, Mr. Chairman. With your indulgence, however, since there are additional questions, if we could still take those today.
I sat in the Senate committee and listened to Representative Dismang and others who commented on Senate Bill 177 just so that I could understand it a little bit better. But by having these questions, that also is helpful as well. Representative Wilkins, I know you're used to things on the Senate end. I'm going to indulge
you for just a few questions and then we're going to cut this off because you've got another bill to run. Is that correct? Representative Hammer,
would you like to briefly ask your question, Representative Walker, after that?
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
1:26:41
Would you just please re-clarify, because based on what you said a minute ago, Mr. Mildoon, at the end of the day, if a Bales bondman is not able to financially honor his debt to the court, basically, my words, then who is going to step up? Is it going to be the board that you have referenced? Is it going to be your association? what kind of financial scrutiny are these companies held to to make sure that the taxpayers don't end up eating the bill if that happens?
John Muldoon
Unverified
1:27:14
The Bell Bond Board itself, they would be the ones that would come in and take over the collection end
Speaker 29
1:27:23
of this from the company. So if the company can't afford to pay, then the board is going to step up and pay that amount no matter whatever it
Speaker 209
1:27:31
is. Yes, sir. Mr. Peters is here from the board as the
executive director if y'all would like to direct some questions towards him in regards to this I didn't see Mr. Peters
hiding back there we can maybe get this out of here
if you come on up to the table and let's talk about it
Speaker 224
1:27:59
Mr. Peters thank you good morning gentlemen please state your name and let us know who you're
Speaker 27
1:28:06
with L.E. Peters, I'm the executive director of the Arkansas Professional Bail Bondsman
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:28:10
Licensee Board. MR. Mr. Nipples, would you like to start back with you, ask your question to him? MR. Yes.
Explain if we repeal, if we pass this legislation that's before us right now, what impact will
that have on the board and your industry? What's the difference between leaving us on the books or taking it off the books? Don't be referencing laws that have not passed, okay? I understand, sir. Anytime
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:28:35
you take that law off the books, it's going to have some type of effect. This
Speaker 225
1:28:41
is extremely very, very, very minimal. I think what needs to be said, each bond company, before they are licensed in the state of Arkansas,
is required with our board to put up a security deposit. That money is physically held either in the form of a CD or a letter of credit. When, as Mr. Muldoon was referring to, a bond becomes in the forfeiture process, if the court issues a judgment against that, we as a board have the statutory authority and, in fact, have done so on a consistent basis, gone and seized that security deposit that's up. We can pay up to $10,000 per any bond.
So that I'm not deceiving you, if a $100,000 bond got forfeited, there would be a potential loss to the county. Obviously, most bonds aren't that big. A normal bond is about $3,000. We can pay up to $10,000. So if a forfeited bond came into our agency that is of normal stuff, it would be paid without question. Once that money is seized to pay that afforded bond, that company is shut off until they
replace that money, until some type of clarification, some type of corrective action is taken. So the secured versus unsecured is a very antiquated type regulation that actually came back from the old insurance industry. The bail bond industry doesn't have reserves based on the number of policies out and face value of those policies. It's a set figure. So as I say, you can't say that
getting rid of a law doesn't have any
Speaker 224
1:30:31
effect but as executive director and formerly as the investigator I can assure you in five years as an investigator that is not a tool
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
1:30:45
Peters. Mr. Nichols, do you have additional questions? No Mr. Chairman I still have problems just taking a law off the books. There must
have been a, and I think as legislators we have to worry about the unusual situations that occur out there. It may, you know, this may take care of all
the normal things that go on by taking this out, but what about those fact situations that just kind of fall through the cracks? Are we making matters worse? So
that's my concern right now. Mr. Hammer, would you like to ask your question?
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:31:25
Representative Walker. Thank you, Chairman. Would you
not agree that it would constitute fraud for a bonding company
to write a bond for which the bonding company does not have sufficient assets to cover at the time it writes the bond? Representative Walker, of course it
Speaker 224
1:31:56
would be. That's not the way the process works. I understand that. I
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:32:00
understand that you all perform a significant public service. But if
you write bonds and you don't have sufficient assets to cover them and you know it at the time,
would not that be sort of criminal and shouldn't it be subject to criminal penalties and wouldn't perhaps putting that in some kind of law be a deterrent to the problem that you have exposed through the proposed legislation that is coming from the Senate and the repeal of this legislation? Well, that's kind of
Speaker 225
1:32:36
a hard question to answer because, and please, if you'll allow me just a moment to explain why, the bail bond industry
is regulated on the front line by every judge that ever allows a bondsman to enter into a bonding activity. We have consistent issues with judges questioning the qualifications, questioning the security, questioning the ability of bond companies. Also, you very seldom have a bondsman walk into any court that that court is not extremely familiar with that bondsman, the bondsman's company, and the bondsman's history.
They keep a very close look on failure to appears issued by any bondsman. So there's a first line of defense through the judiciary end of it, I can't even say that word today, long before it gets to this board. So certainly, you know, you can make an argument for criminal offenses on anything to do with writing something that's not worthwhile. And, in fact, there have been instances in counties in the state of Arkansas where that has been looked at by prosecuting attorneys,
Speaker 224
1:33:52
and some of that is being pursued at this
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:33:57
very moment, as a matter of fact. Well, if I may, Mr. Chair, my concern is that if we're going to think about imposing a criminal penalty on a kid for
addressing some graffiti on a building. When we have the situation where persons knowingly write bonds and they
know they'll default in the event that the person doesn't show, it seems that that's a serious public issue.
But let me go to something else. Do you have a ñ is there any way that this body or anybody in the legislature could be be informed of the number of bondspersons who have actually had to pay bonds in a given year on a county-by-county basis. The reason I ask that is my observation is that the judge is real lenient to bondsmen. They give you every opportunity to secure the accused and then they give you time after
TAM to pay the money, and it's a rarity for a person to be adversely affected by a judge with respect to bond forfeiture. Would you not agree with that? Mr. Walker, I think the
questioning is going to come in that Senate bill that you're asking. Can we limit our questions to the repeal of this particular
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:35:23
bill? I was leading up to supporting the request by Representative Nichols that the matter to be deferred until we really look at the Senate bill.
Okay. Well, that's a matter for Representative Wilkins. Representative Wilkins, any other questions from members? Representative Wilkins, are you considering tabling
your bill for right now? Yes, sir, I am. You are? All right. Well, we will allow you to withdraw your bill, and we
won't lay it on the table. We'll just let you withdraw it, and we'll come back at a later time. You
have another bill on the calendar, House Bill 1245. House Bill 1245,
would you like to run that at this time? Yes, sir. We're going to see if we can't get that done in about 18 minutes.
All right. That would be a record for this committee,
Speaker 232
1:36:09
but let's see. You recognize. All right. Thank you. House Bill 1245,
Speaker 204
1:36:14
clean up language to create some uniformity in the language, and I'd like to call Mr. Muldoon to give more specifics to the
Speaker 232
1:36:23
committee. Mr. Muldoon, you recognize. Please state your name and who you're
with again for the record. My name is John
John Muldoon
Unverified
1:36:32
Muldoon, and I'm with the Arkansas Professional Bill Association.
What House Bill 1245 does is it does clean
up the language that is out there in regards to 1684-201, which is the action on bonds in district courts. other than just the language cleanup itself there's some other issues that it also requires that when a bond is being forfeited that that judge issue a warrant or the court issues a warrant and that that warrant be entered into ACIC only in regards to the district court actions
John Muldoon
Unverified
1:37:08
that are out there and I would
entertain any questions from the committee Mr. Wilkins, does that
conclude your presentation of the bill? MR. Yes, sir. Members, you've heard the presentation of House Bill 1245. Any questions for Mr. Muldoon
Speaker 233
1:37:25
or for Mr. Wilkins? MR. Mr. Walker, you're recognized. MR. Yes, if
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:37:40
I may. May I see that? Are you familiar with the discretion that judges now have with respect to issuing warrants?
Are you familiar with that? They can issue a warrant or they can defer issuance
of a warrant. Yes, sir. What this bill itself is doing, at the beginning of it, it says that if the court, hold on, let me get right to this. It says the district court may direct the fact be entered onto the minutes, and if they do so, okay, the discretion is still there with they may direct the fact entered into the minutes, But if they do show and they do take action against the bonding company, that they shall promptly issue a warrant for arrest,
which only seems, I want to use the word, logical, that if they're going to pursue the bond itself from the bonding company, that they would give us the tools that we need in order to go and apprehend that individual, which is the warrant itself. May I
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:38:39
read into the record a statement from Judge Bruce Anderson? It will be brief. And I would like to ask the question of him with respect to it. Well, you can ask
his question, but unfortunately you can't read into the record because he's
not here and we can't ask questions of him. We can only accept testimony from someone who we can also ask questions of. So if that's his testimony, we can accept that. But if you
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:39:06
want to extrapolate from that and ask a question, that would
be fine. I'll try to do that. Is it not normal practice that if a bondsman does not appear in court, many of these district judges reset the case and the court notifies the bondsman of the resetting rather than issues a warrant?
Now, you're speaking to the bondsman itself that the bondsman does not appear? No.
If the defender does not appear and that person has a bondsman And under your bill, the judge has to then issue a warrant. But is it not normal practice for the judge to at least have the discretion to reset the case and then
to let you know of the resetting so that you can get the
person there? We're not, this bill does not address that discretion that the court has.
This bill only addresses when the court chooses to take action on bonds in regards to forfeiture action. Let me be specific to
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:40:14
that. Well, in looking at A1, this requires the judge to issue a warrant promptly
for the arrest of the defendant and that it be put into the ACIS right away if the person does not appear. Now, what this,
the way the language is, is that if the defendant fails to appear for trial or judgment
or at any time before the entry of judgment, when his or her presence in district court may be lawfully required, excuse me, the district court may direct the fact to be entered on the minutes. That means that they do not have to take the action itself, and therefore they would still have the ability to reset the case, contact the bonding company, and try to get the defendant back in front of them before they choose to take action or forfeiture action against the bonding company.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:41:10
All right, so that you do not, if I may, Mr. Chair, if you do not agree that if the statute is adopted, the clerk has to issue an arrest warrant and it then has to be sent to a law enforcement officer who will, for all practical purposes, get involved, and then it will come back to the court. I agree that
this does require the court, if they choose to take a forfeiture action against the bonding company.
It is their discretion at the time the defendant fails to appear, whether or not they choose to take that forfeiture action. They have the absolute right. Let's say the defendant is not present, but his attorney is. That court is not required to immediately take forfeiture action under this statute. What they can do at that time is, say, the attorney requests that it be continued for two weeks so that they can get their defendant and contact the bonding company
and get them back in front of the court. The court still has that discretion. We have not altered that
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:42:19
in any way. So you're basically, by this legislation, trying to prevent bondsmen from being subjected to a number of forfeitches? No,
sir. No, sir. What we're trying to do is if the court chooses to take forfeiture action against the bondsman, that they would issue a warrant so that we have that tool available to us to go and apprehend that defendant.
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
1:42:41
Now, one final thing. My understanding in law school was that a bail bondsman has the authority, inherent authority,
to apprehend or to, yes, to apprehend or take
a person into custody any time that he or she wants to and to revoke a bond. Isn't that your authority right now? It
is, sir. But in regards to
this itself, let's say I'm from Garland County, so I'll use that as a reference. Let's say a defendant fails to appear in Garland County, and he goes to Pulaski County or Hot Springs County, just over the lines there,
Saline, any of the counties surrounding Garland County. If there's not a warrant issued, and let's say I get the whereabouts of that individual. They're outside of my range of reach at that time as far as time frame. If that warrant is issued and available to us, I can contact the law enforcement agency in that area, make them aware that there is a warrant available, and we can get them apprehended at that time. So they'll do your work for you. We're not looking for somebody to do our work for us, Representative Walker.
We would still have to be the individuals that would go pick them up and bring them back to the jurisdiction of the court. And if there was a cost associated with that,
we would also be liable for that. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Walker. Mr. Mundu, one question from the Chair. Turn to page 2, lines 19 through 22. Could you explain to me what that means and what that does? 19 through 22. Sir, lines 19 through 22.
This has been brought to the association through its members that there are certain courts within the state that may go ahead and issue a judgment prior to the 120 days that's given to us. in order to apprehend the defendant. And what this particular section would do is state if the individual was surrendered, apprehended, or arrested within the 120 days that's allowed us in
Speaker 217
1:44:48
statute now, that the judgment would be void.
They could not collect on that judgment. I'm still a little confused. I'm sorry. I don't even know the correct question to ask you because
I didn't understand your answer. Okay. We're allowed 120 days by statute to get the defendant into custody, okay, right now the way the law is written. And what that means is if the court enters a judgment prior to the 120th day, which is in common in some areas of the state, and we were still able to apprehend that individual or the defendant and bring them back into the jurisdiction of the court,
But what this would do by statute is make the judgment void because we have met the requirements set forth earlier in the statute. So you
would retroactively nullify the judge's judgment? Yes, if it was
Speaker 215
1:45:44
entered prior to the 120th day. Now, if they entered
Speaker 235
1:45:48
on the 121st day, the bonds company does not have any
recourse. I'm going to recognize Representative Shepard for a question
Speaker 213
1:46:01
Thank you, Mr. Chairman With regard to the failure to appear is it fair to say that the great majority of failures
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:46:14
to appear that actually the bondsman is able to contact that person and then they bring themselves involuntarily or do you have to resort to law enforcement a majority of the time?
Speaker 216
1:46:27
Can you give the committee some sense as to what the normal experience is?
Well, I think that could vary from bonding company to bonding company and how that they handle their own practices, their own business practices. But in regards to me, where I operate at within Garland County, I have the ability, it seems, I would say at least 50% of the time to contact that individual. they come into my office, I take them over to the court, and then the court at that time has the right to, if they choose to do so, they can withdraw the forfeiture action, reset the case, and get them back on their docket.
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:47:07
May I follow up on the second part of this bill, which concerns the entry of a judgment within 120 days and the attempt to make that judgment void? Under subsection 2A, the statute already provides that a court may not enter a judgment within that 120-day period. Is that correct? It does state that
Speaker 215
1:47:29
in 2A, although it is an occurring theme that I'm hearing through the association and our members. And do
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
1:47:36
you have the ability to appeal any judgment?
If it is occurring, and apparently it's occurring in violation of a statute, at this point, what is the recourse of the bondsman who is subject to a judgment that was entered prematurely? Thank you. So they
Speaker 217
1:47:54
do have the right to appeal at this time. We have
the right to appeal that judgment. Representative Wilkins, you recognize that what was just pointed out by Representative Shepard is an internal conflict within the statute itself.
We'll continue to take questions,
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
1:48:16
but... If there is a question or two that would
Speaker 204
1:48:20
help the industry to understand how this needs to be amended, then I'm glad to do so with the Chair's indulgence seeing the time. We
here. I'm going to recognize Representative Gillum, Wright, and Rogers, and then you'll decide what you want to do. I've already decided.
Speaker 229
1:48:43
I just want to hear the question. Okay. All
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
1:48:50
right. Reverend Wright, do you have a question? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The language added on page 2, lines 19 through 22, are you telling us that if a judge enters a valid judgment, you all should be granted relief
from that judgment later? In regards to your statement, a valid judgment, if the judgment is entered prior to the 120th day,
Speaker 215
1:49:15
it would not be valid under the statute the way it's written now. So if a court is trying to expeditiously handle a matter and they find valid reasons for entering that judgment, you think you should get relief from that? Is that correct? If it's prior to
the 120th day, yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Wilkins, would you like to tell us what you want to do with this legislation or we can hear from the
Speaker 203
1:49:41
audience? I'm going to pull it down. Absolutely. cut and pick and loot me.
Thank you, Representative Wilkins. We appreciate that. Members, seeing no other business before this committee, we are adjourned. Thank you.
Agenda
Call to Order
HB1207
HB1305
HB1318
HB1010
HB1015
HB1244
HB1245
Documents
No documents posted.
Speakers
Representative Jim Nickels
Unverified
Speaker 3
Representative Randy Stewart
Unverified
Speaker 4
Representative Darrin Williams Chair
Unverified
Representative John W. Walker
Unverified
Representative John Charles Edwards
Unverified
Speaker 13
Representative Kim Hammer
Unverified
Representative Terry Rice Chair
Unverified
Representative Jeremy Gillam
Unverified
Representative Nate Steel
Unverified
Speaker 62
Speaker 76
Representative David "Bubba" Powers
Unverified
Speaker 96
Speaker 98
Speaker 104
Speaker 109
Representative Jon Woods
Unverified
Speaker 113
Speaker 115
Speaker 116
Representative Marshall Wright
Unverified
Representative Gary Deffenbaugh
Unverified
Representative Mary L. Slinkard
Unverified
Speaker 154
Speaker 7
Speaker 160
Speaker 99
Speaker 162
Speaker 171
Speaker 177
Speaker 179
Speaker 68
Speaker 181
Lindsey Williams
Unverified
Speaker 191
Speaker 70
Speaker 195
Speaker 196
Speaker 197
Robert Combs
Unverified
Speaker 117
Speaker 32
Speaker 204
Speaker 205
Speaker 29
Speaker 209
Speaker 213
Representative Matthew Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 215
Speaker 217
John Muldoon
Unverified
Speaker 224
Speaker 27
Representative Butch Wilkins
Unverified
Speaker 225
Speaker 43
Speaker 232
Speaker 233
Speaker 235
Speaker 216
Speaker 243
Speaker 229
Speaker 203