Judiciary Committee- House

Numerous times the only bills will be taking up today will be Senate bills Senate judiciary chair is informed me that Senate judiciary will not be meeting. Anymore this week so obviously House bills cannot get out Senate chair will call if you called meeting it'll be at his call and to that's that's how we're going to operate so we're only going to be hearing Senate bills. Now what we've got first of all on our on our agenda today. We have. A special order on Senate bill four ninety five and then we have our regular agenda how we're going to handle that today is we have a special guest here with his Attorney General Tim Griffin he has a. Full schedule today and he had a little bit of time this morning he wanted to come and speak on Senate bill four ninety five and we're going to allow him to do that but we are not going to take that bill up first we will come back to that bill so what we're going to do is hear from Attorney General Griffin and then we'll move right into our agenda with Senate bill two O. four so Attorney General Griffin you're welcome to come to the end of the table identify yourself and I will be happy to hear from you. I'm Tim Griffin. My cell phone five oh one eight three seven fifty one ninety you already have it anyway if you have any questions you don't get to ask him you can call me appreciate three general appreciate to a chairman having me and give me a few minutes Preciado representative Gazaway give me a few minutes had now to. Of the disaster in west little rock and appreciate just want so I appreciate all the work good work that people from all over the state and all over the country actually are doing to help here and in little rock and north little rock sure would Central Arkansas winds and wind yesterday I'm obviously I think thank you becomes a surprise and for the bill. it is truly been needed for decades in the state and two key components that chairman I'd like to just quickly address first of all on the a prison capacity you know. I hate that we have to lock anybody up. but we need to. you can't just go after people for serious crimes what we consider serious crimes rape or things like that. You've got to deal with a culture of non compliance across the board what a good academic papers written on the importance of dealing with not only serious felonies but misdemeanors if you're going to have a society where people fall at all you can't have a society where you go after motors but everybody's drag race and paint everything with graffiti violate every other law you can have that it's it's got it's really all or nothing. And what we have seen over the decades relating to bring very few people. Silence on this issue at least eight years I was lieutenant governor I didn't hear anybody talk about this it's unfortunate but what we have is we've delayed for a couple decades building more capacity. In an intentional way. But I would I would argue that everybody in the legislature regardless of party regardless of where they on the political spectrum have been event on building more jail space they have supported it and it's been in the form the worst possible form which is don't have a public discussion a more beds wishes quietly. Not object when we fund putting people in county jails. So we've been building more capacity so to speak for years but we've been doing it the wrong way. I just feel a county jails you told sheriffs about that it's not debatable it's a fact and So what's the consequence of that you might say who cares better bent nope that's not bear to county jails are designed to deal with misdemeanor offenses. When you for a county jail in the sheriff tell you that people know they can commit all sorts misdemeanors drag Racin graffiti shoplift in hot checks whatever drunk driving when people know that they're not going to be locked up in the county jail big because there's no room. And you've got to really fight for a place in prison your call or to get in Arkansas president. Because they're so full but when you do that the shelves will tell you that's water back in this bill prosecutors to. They'll tell you that misdemeanor justice goes away so you know look if you're not interested in having people pose for misdemeanors just wanna code was P. also people have the code and act like it exist and then not have any room for those people and that's what we ended up doing so we all the misdemeanor side of things basically been set to the side and we have been blowing up our presence. It will leasing. People yearly you should never see the light of day. Way short of their terms. So here's what we need to do in this is what this act does it expands prison capacity so that allows the overflow of felons that are in jails to get pushed where they belong back in the presence which opens up jails for the stated purpose is anything else in life if you use something for for something other than it was intended it don't work what what's what's going on with jails jails don't have the programs to help the to to provide the support that the the the felons need volunteer hours that the people in the jails aren't trying to build our phones you can't take ballot felons out on the opportunity excerpts Senator so we need to get the capacity correct just to get the jails back to where they need to be worried about I think the as of an article yesterday and Democrat Gazette I think what about twenty four hundred. Twenty four hundred or so state prisoners who were sitting in county jails they need to be moved out so there's there's most of the capacity that the bills contemplates building so we got to do that. And then on the other side. In terms of punishment and deterrence incapacitation rehabilitation. We don't have to make a choice between rehabilitating prisoners and locking him up. And having more capacity we can do. More than one thing at the same time in fact two things can be true at the same time it's a false choice to say let's not build more capacity what's more representation. That's like saying your kids what's called. No both we can do both it's pretty simple you got to do both but the foundation of a free society is to have people who would do us harm incapacitated and locked up for the can't do it again that is job one of government hello bike paths the government for not established by our founders to establish bike paths is to provide a. To society in the foundation of order is getting people who would kill us. After strict. The two attempted murders within a few football field to my front door and I live in one of the best what I consider the safest part of our but that's a relative term obviously So we have a system now where you for all eligibility date that's pretty much assent so if you get twelve years and I have a spreadsheet of these very by what Sam I've been tracking the the worst criminals in Arkansas as they show up in the press been find out which one to parolees and I've made a spreadsheet over the last a year and a half of this share it with the pressure with anybody we're just fax so giving example one guy got twelve twelve years hundred forty four months and he served twenty four months that was approachability date well that's. What's the common theme that you'll see recalled bill the date that you're sent. This person had engaged in follow back activity. But it would show up in the paper on a new conviction so we researched. And he was in prison for twenty four months should have been twenty twelve years and I thought well if they let him out after twenty four months Mr really beg like at the logical degree yeah really behaved himself. Well no he assaulted an officer while I was there in those twenty four months he was he had disciplinary problems for seventeen of the twenty four months to get out well that's common they just they just won't let him out now so. He had seventeen months of problems what about between seventeen and twenty four months before we got out The New. What those violations and I was told by somebody inside the system well that's what they do see what they do is they quit thank you they quit right now not for bad stuff because I want to make sure they can get out. Service to all of us. Find out who's making that decision firearm. That is horrible but that's the culture get. And I understand the problem but over the last eight years we releasing people through emergency order in this state and I saw the list about one of my phone hot check writing pot smoke and. Shoplifters. So would do you harm if they saw you alone. We still willing day we got I was meeting with some of the people in this room well as we tenet government I said we got about five thousand people. Right thank you will surely be eleven thousand. Ballinger of a discounted who is run out of state we can have it. We got to stop water service. I told him that if it's protect Act is poorly implemented which it won't it won't be if it was still be safer we are now. We got a problem folks and this is going to be a game changer this goes from you get out quickly to the default is you serve your time just like the federal system the federal system hasn't will. One system that criminals are scared off and there's a whole bunch in the states that people are not scared of. Criminals they because it is a joke they know the game they know they're getting out the federal system scares them to where often they will cry when they find out that they're going the federal out I've talked to Attorney General bill about it twice I flew some legislators up to meet with former Attorney General bill Barr he says this bill is a game changer it takes all the good of the federal system and adds a massive chunk of rehabilitation and the ability to buy some time down on your senate if you earn it if you earn it the default does you to the top hello this bill I'm I'm proud to be here it represent in my support and I see a twenty nine to thirty five vote in the Senate I was down there for eight years very few big bills ever get that kind of vote in the Senate so it's a great built one thank representative Gazaway he's been a rock star I know sometimes you would think he's a rock star you think he's more of a classical pianist. Right here. He's start on I didn't know and before this but I actually like it. He's a good he's a good guy out in big Gilmore Senator Gilmore done great work thank you governor one think so much on the staff here from department corrections and in all so thank you chairman forgive me this is really this dollar bill this is for the whole state we've all got a problem. And this is gonna is gonna help fix it. Attorney General we certainly appreciate your time we appreciate your passion I know you've got places to go in certainly feel free to check back in the Senate today because we will be dealing with this bill after a little while thank you Sir if you'll tell Jimmy the retirement text I'll check in with your text you're the only one. Thank you senator governorship what we get out for a. Senator Wallace. You're recognized to present Senate bill two O. four so members if you'll turn to Senate bill two O. four US senator Wallace what you identify yourself you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you madam chair center Dave Wallace District nineteen. In. As a former house members could be back in the House Committee. plastered with. Several bill is a little bit here. Two years ago. To me a representative Gazaway Jimmy Gazaway not present a really good bill. it was just as for a remarkable victims of sexual abuse. And what the bill did. Was extend to the age fifty five for individuals who have been abused to press civil charges against. the abusers. Great bill passed of thirty five nothing in the Senate in an overwhelmingly in the house. I come forward to amend that. We paid fifty five. Because most victims will come forth. Round the age of middle age forty five to fifty five. Shortly after we pass this bill. I started getting a lot of phone calls lot of Texas let emails from folks saying Hey two great bill but you let those out I'm fifty six I'm sixty I'm sixty two all this bill does is simply amend. A really good bill and move the age from fifty five. To the day you die. And with that I will stand by for your questions. Members are there any questions. Represent college you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair and thanks for the bill so I I'm wondering about the this two and on the second page of the bill and just the timing of how this works and I've talked representative Gazaway about this a little bit but I I think I just want to know how you can tell me how it might work so what this says is that you know we we are currently in a window people under fifty five could bring one of these suits Ryan but this says that whether you're fifty five or older fifty five or younger yeah action can be commenced six months after between six months and thirty months after the effective date of this act which is in twenty twenty three yes so I guess two parts to call parts of my question first that means there's gonna be a six month gap right for people under fifty five who concurrently Brent Brent clam but after July or after whatever it is that this act passes they will be governed I can't bring a claim is that right one and two what about if there's an active claim right now does that. The depositors or any issue with those claims if someone's currently in court pursuing this there there is a gap the invert but there's a gap the ones as I understand that are currently in progress that will continue all okay all right well I think that's probably the most important thing so that's unaffected by this the gap okay thanks. We're seeing any other questions. Seeing no further questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill senator Wallace you're recognized close for you ma'am Sir Wallace is cause for a bill I have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion on the motion. Seeing no discussion all in favor please say aye. The opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill. Next member since we have senator Wallace here and we need the senators are kind of elusive at times. We're going to move to Senate bill ninety six so members trying to Senate bill ninety six and senator Wallace you're recognized to present your bill thank you Mr. Members of I read all bills. This bill is really important to me. Twenty four years ago. There was a twelve year old child abused in in my hometown. Two thousand people. The person who did it will walk down the street you with thank. There's nice guy. Snorkel didn't granted Graham did have a sloping forehead. Just look like a regular guy. Any abuses child. He spent. A short time in. Consecrated. Right back on the street. Has some restrictions could go close to children. was on the sexual offenders list for fifteen years. And after fifteen years sexual offenders have the right. To fall in court to be removed from the sexual offenders list. That that may be fair. But what's not fair in the state of Arkansas is the victim is not notified. When there abuse or is falling to be removed from the sex offender's list. Last summer. I had a thirty four year old lady knock on my door one seventy. If you want to know. Why someone didn't tell her that her abuser back when she was twelve years old. One on one told her that. He was going to court to be removed and once removed from the sex offender's list she never got a chance to testify what that it abuser did to her. This bill simply allows. Victims of sexual abuse to be notified. If they choose to opt in and I realize that some victims will choose not to offense objective will. To move completely away from it but if a victim most often. The vines. the agency victim notification agency will notify them thirty days before. The court date. The responsibility on the victim is. If I live a little Arkansas I go to war I'm living that's how often if I move to moan it five years later I need to tell you before I moved. Fine says responsibility of sending that information to them at their last known address. I worked on this for. Senate bill ninety six I'm just now getting the president from the office it took me forever to work with the bureaucracy within our system and they get all the different agencies to agree upon it everybody thought it was a good bill no one would be in charge of. We finally worked that out. Members is a good bill it will give our victims. Their force in court. And with that I stand by for your questions. Members any questions. Seeing no questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill senator Ross you're recognized because for your bill I'm closed senator Wallace is close to a bill with the wishes of the committee we have a motion to do pass is there a discussion of the motion. Seeing no discussion all in favor of the motion to pass police say aye opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you have passed your thank you ma'am which is good to be back to the house for awhile good to see you senator. Bryant are you ready has Seve back there. Members we're going to take up. Senate bill three sixty six. Senate bill three sixty six center Bryant you're recognized to identify yourself and present your bill. Thank you madam chair thank you members. Joshua Bryant state Senate district thirty two. Members this this is a. I think of a bill that. Deserves deserve deliberation not obviously as a present for the bill of I've got my my opinion but for some of us the the argument for the other side will be compelling. I want to dress hello I'm connected to this it was it was a Friday morning I got a call from a constituent no older older gentleman and said I like to know why they arrested my son this morning. And as I will give you the context and they said well his mother went to the Department corrections and pick them up after six and a half years of incarceration he went through the entire purposes. He got picked up by Thursday night and Friday morning there was a knock at the door and they they requested him. And Senate back down to corrections and so I immediately called call a local authorities election systems that use picked up back in department corrections. Well as we as we unpacked what happened. But what I realize is when working with other other representatives that had the same concerns was. In two thousand and one the General Assembly passed ACT eighteen oh five which created enumerated offenses list of a violent felonies the the the worst of the worst. What they did is it put people on notice that if you have convicted and convicted of this in the past and get convicted of these crimes in the future you will serve one hundred percent of your time. Fast forward to two thousand and fifteen. And it was ACT five ninety five the General Assembly one of the the justice reform package is added residential burglary to that list of violent offenses I'm no way saying that residential burglar is not a personal. Personal matter it is it's it's it's a obviously when you get somebody as well but residential burglary is different than aggregate big aggravated burglary this could be somebody stole we need to route your garage it could become the offense. Well so it anybody that was convicted of residential burglary prior to two thousand fifteen. Should have been on notice that any violent a fence including residential regular going forward would create the condition where they were not eligible for parole. Well that is not how the department corrections interpreter that for seven years for seven years when asked repeatedly by judges by prosecutors but defense attorneys they were given advice that if the if. they arrested person had had educated residential burglary prior two thousand fifteen that was not treated as a violent offense therefore anything going forward as as offense on the list would be treated as a first offense eligible for parole. Hendren one inmates were released on parole due to that interpretation. Eleven of those re offended and actually up it back into the incarceration. Two hundred and and it's so so fast forward that's how the the system was that's how. The business was done I've got a range documentation showing that direct dialogue between officers of the court to the pole to this criminal system saying this is the standard practice of the state of Arkansas. The Attorney General of assets are we doing this right. And in two thousand twenty two April tenth twenty two she the tornadoes office came out with opinion saying we look at this these cases and and we're not doing this right those people should have been treated as a first offense prior tested team anywhere in the nation and they should have been served all for they should be serving full time. So the protections when basically reevaluated all these pro standards and two hundred ninety inmates got readjusted on time two hundred ninety inmates that were parole eligible not guaranteed pole there's never a guaranteed approval but there pole eligible got their sentences turn to the maximum time. So if you were if you violated the law in your defense attorney told you but we got two options you can take a plea agreement and be eligible for parole and serve one six of your time. Or. Or you can go to court. And risk the a jury send you to Max time. What would you do I think most people would take and take the forty years with a guaranteed approval rather than thirty years at the job the jury. So that's that's what they chose and time went on the families could watch in the system what's the parole eligibility take down and then one day it gets readjusted Senate bills or for twenty twenty five you are now release date is twenty thirty nine. And so naturally. The roof families want to know what happened. And that is what happened. So. I do not fall to the attorney general's office they're trying to stay consistent. And unfortunately the courts have ruled that they they have that authority that it is their authority to determine parole eligibility based on the law and the only way we can fix this is for the General Assembly to pass a law that I presented today that says a. For institutional integrity for the window of time. We decided that this is how we're gonna interpret this we need to honor that even to people that probably don't deserve it. Because of what is that teaching now exam to them with our own institutions can't follow their own word. So okay I'll close by saying. That when we make a mistake we gotta we gotta fix it we gotta make it right. And it's it puts us in a position that it looks like maybe we're being soft on crime I say we're not being soft on crime we're giving we're giving grace will grace is due because that is the word of a government body. And when when the government body tells repeatedly for seven years that this is how we do business. It that's how business that's how to work it spread so there's no question of what's going to happen if you get arrested and residential burglaries in your past. Until it's not. So that I would love to take questions I know it's I hope I explain that it's a it's a interesting subject and before I close the bill that we're going to look at for. I think it's going to protect act act a bill for senate bill four ninety five percent of your warrant and represent Gazaway. It it actually moves residential burglary Office enumerated fences for going forward and so it that actually prior to two thousand fifteen it was not on the list after if if the General Assembly passes Senate bill four ninety five it removes offer listeners as window of time where we said we're going to do something one way we changed our minds but now we're changing it back for those going in the future so it really creates a window of of impossible circumstances for those affected two hundred ninety inmates. Members of the questions. Representative under you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair a subgroup if this bill passes here up what does for the for the guys who were locked up under this sort of catch twenty two thing what is next for them how. How do they move forward in the system. There is that the the border patrol that group will recalculate back to the way they haven't been interpreting it for seven years and it doesn't make anybody. Be released it just reinstates parole eligibility which means when it when their time comes to the still go to the system where it's a notifies victims and notifies the prosecutors were ready can weigh in just to make sure that are we sure that we will let but then back of a reform to let them back into society so it just reinstates parole eligibility back to where they want to take down for seven years the. Members any other questions. Seeing no further questions we do have some individuals have signed up to speak for against this bill. Speaking of for the bill is William Stevens Mr Stevens if you'll come to the end of the table identify yourself you'll be recognized to make your statement. Good morning my name is William Stevens I have I want to start off by first thanking the members of the house Judiciary Committee for allowing me the opportunity to speak to you today about Senate bill three six six. Now I'm not appearing today met before at before you as an attorney as a legislator as a member of any type of state office as my grandpa all we used to tell me when I was growing up I really don't have a dog in this fight. but I'm here as a native and citizen of Arkansas this morning I do want to start off by telling you the story of a family member of mine who was recently affected by the attorney general's opinion last year that determine the enforcement of the legislation of ACT eighteen oh five that was enacted by the legislature in two thousand fifteen. My nephew was convicted of burglary in two thousand seventeen and he had been convicted of the same charge earlier in his life the prosecuting attorney the public defender and the judge offered him a plea deal at his hearing. And while he was sentenced to over three hundred months. He accepted a single plea agreement for the prosecuting attorney that said after sixty months he would be eligible for parole. That agreement was approved by the judge he began to serve his sentence with parole eligibility date of October fourth twenty twenty two. While incarcerated he applied himself and we worked hard on turning his life around to become a better person and a citizen. Based upon its conduct as an inmate he was actually transferred to another department of corrections regional work facility and was working for a private employer off private prison grounds he worked hard was promoting was even making twenty dollars and twenty five cents an hour. As compared to the twelve dollars an hour or the noon May are twelve dollars a month that inmates usually make. As a forklift operator and he was saving is checked of course he had to pay the department corrections back for his room and board and he was going to going to pay his court ordered settlements once he got out of prison in in accordance with this plea agreement. He even offered a position by the employer once he got out on parole to continue to work there and he was planning to do so way way from his hometown under supervised custody for a year to make sure that he entered society correctly this time it didn't make any mistakes a few months before his parole date. A board and a captain of the Arkansas department of correction showed up and handcuffed him both by his feet and by his hands and told him. That subsequent opinion by the Attorney General he was no longer eligible for parole in his new release date was October twenty fourth twenty forty two. Let me say that again. Twenty forty two. Let's put that in perspective like the Attorney General I've actually got a look at a lot of inmates of the last several months. Individuals who were convicted of murder. Kidnapping and rape. Within six months of my nephew said conviction we're given the same or lesser sentences and he was. And that's with for a sentence that was based upon the law. That no one to include the Arkansas department of corrections. The parole board county judges and prosecutors chose to follow it every step of the process. For more than seven years into the law went into effect at the Attorney General said to you this morning. Where is the culture of compliance. I currently work as a human resources and corporate compliance officer for company here in Arkansas and I know first hand that the state has laws and rules that I have to follow every single day and every aspect of my job and if I do not I also know that my company and I will be held personally liable. The legislation that because this situation passed through this committee and become a law in this state in two thousand fifteen. And now it seems that we are wanting to hold those who committed the crime accountable but there is no accountability to those who are elected appointed or hired to follow laws for more than seven years after it became the law. Members of the house Judiciary Committee I'm very sorry but that is unacceptable. In my experience I have created policies and laws and rules as an employer that really look good on paper until I see how they impact my employees every single day. And I have to hold my culture accountable at my organization in myself. To make sure I fix that as soon as I possibly can. Senate bill three sixty six will allow those who have been impacted by the two hundred fifteen law and subsequent failure to enforce that law by the Arkansas department of corrections and all the other agencies I've already mentioned. And it will get the give the inmates the of who are affected by this the opportunity to have parole which they had before. We expect them to ever follow the rules. We need to look at those roles in the agreement so we have made to them. In closing I want to leave you with a quote that I have on my desk that was given to me by one of my employees to Dr Martin Luther king. The time is always right to do the right thing. Senate bill three sixty six will hold the state inmates equally accountable and it is the right thing to do for the Arkansas legislature it is time to do the right thing for all Arkansans even those who have broken the law and are now being punished additionally because we did not follow our own laws. Thank you thank you Mr Stevens appreciate your testimony today next we have speak for the bill Kimberly Charles is Charles if you'd like to come to the end of the table. Philadelphia yourself you're recognized to make your statement hello my name is Kimberly Charles and I am thank you for allowing me to speak I am for the bill I am a veteran and my son was affected by this as well. The reason why I'm here today is speaking on behalf of my son as well as a friend of mine she she's here today her name is on the way she's not going to speak but. I think the thing about it is I'm not here for sympathy I'm not asking for sympathy for this bill what I am asking for is that when we went to court on this my son he made a decision to do what he did I'm not saying that he wasn't wrong he was and he should be punished you need to of whatever it is that they gave him he need to serve it. But at on twenty eighteen he was given a a time amount he went to court they told him what he was going to get they gave them the the this the the offer to either take a plea deal or go with go to trial he chose to take the plea deal that's what we thought he was going to do and twenty twenty one we look at this time from twenty twenty three when he was supposed to be getting out his time moved up to twenty thirty five so. My question is if this is what they told him that he was gonna get this is what he was going to this is what he was supposed to have and he's supposed to do everything he's supposed to do within the system and then be eligible for parole then one out on it It and that's all I'm asking for and not just for him but for those that it affected and like I said I'm speaking for him and the other families. And I mean that's really all I'm asking and like again like I said I'm not asking for anything light or any type of sympathy Anybody that breaks the law they are supposed to serve whatever they supposed to serve but to come back and tell them I made a mistake and you have to do. Your whole time after we told you that you wish that you can get whatever we gave you in court from the judges your prosecutor your public defender we make you this promise we gave you our word but we're going to go back on it and you're supposed to accept it like it's okay I just don't feel that it is. Thank you ma'am represents cut you a question ma'am would you would you take a question from a committee member Mr house would you take a question from a committee member I will represent Scott you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair and thank you for being here you come to answer my questions but what I'm thinking about is the families who were advised by prosecutors or whoever they're council might have been they could have possibly made a different decision if they weren't being advised on the information that they were giving them do you think that might have been the case for your son. Because I know you said something about the opportunity of possibly travel or taking this plea deal based off you might have to serve this. Depending on whatever the sentence was well they didn't say that he would have to do a hundred percent so what they did was they offered him a plea deal they didn't say well if you go to trial you're going to get. X. amount so they didn't really tell him that if you go to trial they're going to give you the Max nor did they say that if you go to trial that you're going to have you're going to get a habitual or anything like that so he didn't get the opportunity to know that when he went to eighty see he's going to have. So he no he didn't get advised like that. Thank you members any other questions see no further questions thank you for your testimony today next we have Sherman Laughlin. This book often you're recognized recognized to come to the end of the table fuel state your name may make your statement. Money Sharma Glickman and thank you for humidity my feelings he is one of the inmates to work in the later what happened later in capped he actually. Did the same as all these other inmates he went to court he was offered a plea deal. By that I mean he went through the. Prosecutors defense attorneys judge everybody agreed on the plea bargain that was offered to him so he accepted he accepted it. I was in there to do the same for what he did he understands that. Last year on the sixteenth of me he was approved for parole he would have been only unical and then the gate from this letter seeing you would do if tame which keeps M. two two thousand thirty two. June sixth I believe of two thousand thirty one. Hi do you have been in court and they said well. You're going to do your full team regardless do you you can go to trial or other circumstances the things that you get offered in court. He medium not if he thought that they were going to turn around and tell them okay. You seven years down the line we changed remains. For approval as well but all women at the next week you're not going home. He had a job waiting on them. A son that he hasn't seen in ten years. To be reunited with. New if only granddaughter. A lot of things that we're waiting on that was good things that when he got home that to keep him on the right track. In the home he acted. Do everything to the letter. That was all taken away. He he court told okay you have been approved you're going home and then the ticket away the give having all these other and makes a later and he's still sitting there. Get fast. Thank you how is this going to be. Because there's a lot of changes in president as well if you if you can be added what a better life he's not getting that Johnson because they want to keep with the two thousand thirty one he didn't make a mistake he didn't court when they offer time. Because somebody else's mistake. He still sitting there. Thank you thank you ma'am a single questions thank you for your testimony today. The next person who signed up to speak for the bill is David Slade Mr Slade if you come to the. Practice at all okay. Thank you with that we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill Senator Rapert you're recognized close for your bill thank you committee I know this time of session time is is valuable obviously this impacts our Kansans it impacts and the integrity of our institutions and as determined for spoke it is sometimes it's just it's hard it may be hard but it's what is the right thing to do is the right thing to do so with that I I close in the outlook for a motion to get the members Senator Rapert is close for his bill I have a motion to pass on the floor is there any discussion of the motion represent guess what you're recognized. Thank you madam chair and appreciate senator Bryant will bring in this bill I understand that it is. The subject of some controversy but we have a J. P. R. meeting on this issue. I believe it was last year where we really kind of fleshed out a lot of the issues here. And. I don't like it I'm gonna say that I don't like what what we're having to do here because this is completely unnecessary and never should have happened in the first place. But the fact is is that it did happen and we can't go back and change the past we can try to make things right one of the things that came out in the. J. P. R. hearing and I just wanna emphasize this because this is a real practical example of what happened there was a case in Craighead county in this came to me from a lawyer in general who this happened to his client. Where the. A prosecutor. Had emailed this is in anticipation of the plea the prosecutor initially emailed the department of correction saying that they had some questions about how much time offenders would have to serve before being placed on parole and who they would need to contact they were told you they would need to contact and then the prosecutor I know well we still prosecutor cricket council as specifically I have a defendant who is to plead guilty to residential Burke who pled guilty to residential burglary in two thousand he's going to plead to sexual assault second on Monday. Since both are considered violent felonies or sex offense does he have to serve flat time under sixteen ninety three six oh nine. And she said my understanding is the editor of ABC was not interpreting pre twenty fifteen residential burglaries is violent offenses for purposes of parole eligibility is this still the case. An email comes back from the department of corrections. And says. Yes you are correct eighty C. is not considering residential burglary is a violent charge prior to for one of twenty fifteen when it was added to the list again this is an official statement from an official actor with the department of corrections and so in reliance on that the prosecutor acted with that understanding the defense attorney emails just to double check and said basically we reported your email and it's my understanding ATC does not consider residential burglar violent felony if the plea was prior to April one of twenty fifteen if that is the case with our client be eligible for parole after serving one six the descendants if you got all of his good time and everything I understand that that is discretionary but I want to make sure under sixteen ninety three six oh nine be one that the residential burglary from two thousand one not triggered no parole and that's in all caps. And I was also concerned or sixteen ninety three six fifteen H. was says Paul cannot happen until someone's fifty five years old in the department of corrections responded eighty C. is not considering residential burglary a violent charge prior to four one twenty fifteen when it was added to the list. At the residential burglary was prior to for one twenty fifteen and now convicted of sexual assault your client will serve one third of his or her sentence less any good time aren't this is contingent upon the weather prior convictions for Boehner sexual offenses so once again this was the official communication coming out of the apartment corrections and people relied on that. People relied on that and made decisions based on those specific representations and so to me. Yeah again as much as I don't like it because eighty C. was not properly applying the law. They. They made specific representations of people don't relied on to their detriment and then woke up one day and realize that although I've made decisions under these assumptions that I would be eligible for parole after a certain time and a place maybe able to chose another course of action if if things have been different but under those assumptions I made a decision and they woke up one morning and found out that their parole eligibility was twenty years later than what they thought it was going to be. Because ADC had corrected their misinterpretation a lot now to me. Ultimately this is an issue about fundamental fairness but I'm gonna tell you the problem. As I understand what we gonna do if we pass this in one of these folks who should have been in starting a hundred percent time and you should not be released what we gonna do when one of those folks gets out and hurt somebody and my question is who do I need to tell them to call because this was not my mistake in the first place and we're having to correct your mistake so when that happens and people upset as they rightfully should be. Tell him to call I'm gonna tell him to call the department of corrections because it was year problem you because this not us we're trying to fix it and I hate that we have to they should not mess it up I'm going to vote for the bill because I think it's the right thing to do I think it's the fair thing to do I think it's a shame that they put us in this predicament. Members any other discussion on the motion representative Scott you're recognized for discussion on the motion thank you madam chair so I was on JPR last year and we've been trying to meet with department of corrections we talked to one of the teachers who is a parent of one of the inmates who was picked up I believe I don't remember his name but just to echo what representative Gazaway said this is not a soft on crime said bill to me I think as a body we are better than just saying we're sorry to these two hundred and ninety families who were impacted by this inaccurate and inconsistent application of the law by one of our agencies it's about doing the right thing this is not soft on crime this is us making right what one of our agencies has done they have any accurately in inconsistently applied the law and it bites prosecutors and people across the state for seven years so I'll be a yes on this and what I'm saying if left extend grace and let's hold our agencies to the accountability that we hold ourselves to as a chamber after the house chamber. Thank you members any other discussion. Seeing the further discussion we have a motion on the table all in favor motion do pass please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you have passed your bill. We're going to move to Senator Clark's bills who is next up so we will take it Senate bill two sixty six senator Clark you're recognized come to the end table identify yourself and you're recognized to present your bill member Senate bill two sixty six thank you madam chair with your permission I will ask Bond Welch of a parent council to come help present this will be fine. Well if you go ahead and identify yourself and that we will have that out of the way. Yes ma'am my name is Brian Wilson the executive director for the parent council commission and this bill is basically just a quick clean up bill just a little history when we removed from the AOC to the public defender commission were currently housed the original bill was drafted to create our commission that oversees are dated a business in doing so it name the for appointment entities but it did not sign. Which category that each entity was responsible for appointing all this bill does is is a sign that to those particular entities there's no changing the entities and there's no change in the make up of the Commission so it's just a quick clean up. And I'll take any questions if anybody has a car do you have anything you'd like to add. No of Mr what is done a good job of explaining the bill. Members are there any questions of either senator Clark or Mr Welch. Seeing the questions. We have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill senator Clark you're recognized to close for your bill. Madam two I am closing I would appreciate a good vote. Member center Clark is close for the bill with the wishes of the committee. I have a motion to do pass is there any discussion of the motion. Seeing no discussion all in favor of the motion do pass please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill thank you madam chair thank you members of the committee. Sir Clark feel to stay down at the end of the table we're gonna take your next bill up which is Senate bill three eleven so members if you will turn to Senate bill three eleven there is physical impact statement. With this bill so you should have that at your desk. Or find it on your device one way or the other Senator Clark you're recognized to once again identify yourself for the record and to present Senate bill three eleven thank you madam chair Alan Clark the state Senate district seven and I'm gonna ask with your permission attorney Brian vendor to come help present this bill yes Sir. Thank you madam chairman my name is Brian Vandiver returning with over twenty years of practice in the state of Arkansas and I work with other bill group Arkansas advocates for personally quality many of you may remember we worked two years ago to pass the good act for joint custody of this bill we bring to you today said bill three eleven stems from number of cases recently but primarily what I call the Frazier case that was decided in twenty twenty one and let me tell you about the phrase your case. Mr Frazier was done dating the mother and The mother was also dating another man at the time and she became pregnant and had a child Mr Frazier was told at the time that it wasn't his child and that's what he believes the child was given the other man's name. And Mister Frazier went on his way seventeen and a half years later. when the mother signed her rise to the office of child support enforcement Mr Frazier was notified that it was his child in the and I confirm that and he was then sued for back child support for eighteen years to the tune of a hundred eighty thousand dollars. Arkansas is one of the few handful states that does not have a statue of limitations for child support and this bill seeks to correct that what this bill would do it It status of three year statute of limitations for child support in our state and prevent cases like the freighter case and others were filed we go for over a decade oftentimes up to eighteen years not knowing they have a child and then get notified that they're on the hook for the full amount support without ever having the opportunity to have that father relationship. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Buckethead metal chairs of I don't know of there is no no opposition to the bill we amended it for DCFS and child support judicial council and the bar association the three years actually of come from the Bar Association of. And of we'll be happy to take any questions. Members are there any questions. Seeing the questions we have no one who but we do have someone is signed up to speak for the Bill Clinton. Lencastre. Mr Lancaster you'll come to the end of the table. You're recognized to make your statement thank you madam chair I'm Clint Lancaster and I support this bill because. Often times we see an opt in so I'm gonna take you all know I'm an attorney and I've done a lot of child support cases including some pretty high stakes wins and what we have happen is we have parents who say I don't want dad to have any ability to have contact with this kid okay so what do I have to do we say we don't ask for child support right and it back just wait just wait till eighteen or about that time period because then you can bring your child support action hook on for eighteen years get all the money that you didn't get and you'll cut off that person's right to be ordered to to to see the kid and that's because child support and child custody and visitation or two very separate things are legally distinct in Arkansas and so I have literally. I I guess supposedly it seems kind of various but that's what I get paid to do sometimes and that is exactly what I've done is I know it in all first kill all the lawyers just not mere Mister Gazaway. Wait a minute there's some others on this committee. We have a vested interest in not being killed too so you know he want this bill to pass you need to show love to all of us okay any while you're still there we go love you all so I this what this does is this puts a limitation of three years that also kind of comports with the due process requirement because there is something fundamentally unfair about having to go back eighteen years to pay something that you had no notice about or no knowledge about and so I I would ask that you pass this bill because it will it will shore up current parents rights in and bring Arkansas back into line with what's more fundamentally fair. Members are there any questions say no questions thank you for your testimony today thank you ma'am that is all that we have signed up to speak for or against the bill Senator Clark you're recognized close for your bill thank you madam chair of brought Bennifer is done a good job of presenting this and we say this is a loophole this there is not just this one case there's more than one case and it allows To go back three years on child support but no further and in it the. The fix is a fundamental unfairness and I would appreciate a good vote. Thank you senator Clark is close for his bill with the wishes of the committee of a motion to do pass is there any discussion of the motion seeing no discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you have passed your bill thank you madam chair thank you members of the committee. Sir Clark you have. One more bill I'm guessing you want to stay at the end of the table present that one yes ma'am okay members if you'll turn to Senate bill three twelve. Senate bill three twelve Senator Clark you're recognized to present your bill and thank you madam chair with your indulgence on last Pokhran vendor and Clint Lancaster to help president SP three twelve. Certainly. And again Alan Clark St Sydney District seven. You're recognized to present your bill thank you. So this bill what it no one of the key components of it is it it allows for a person who's eighteen or over to bring up paternity action now at that time point like I said just a second ago the support if visitation and been paternity they're all separate and so I this is a true story I am not making this up in a about twenty twenty after I was wrapping up a case involving a president Biden's son I got a call from a guy who swore up and down that Bill Clinton was is that and he wanted me to to establish paternity and I said well you're out or what because the only thing you can do is wait until he dies and then make a claim against the state is what they call pre permitted air or forgotten their this this statute this bill would change that way it becomes a statute it would allow that person to bring a paternity action now I'm not asking you to pass this just to harass former president Clinton that's not what I'm saying but what I am saying is is that a child's genetic identity is important for a number of reasons oftentimes there are health implications so for example there's a certain gene I'm told that's carried by women that makes it incredibly more likely that a woman will get breast cancer in a fatal form of ID that gene can be detected through DNA and other aspects glaucoma is a as a ready Terry disease and knowing that people have that or have those type of traits Alausa people to protect their health and and that kind of stuff additionally Arkansas favors parental relationships of any kind as we often say I did adoption this morning insulin county before I came up here and as I always say a child cannot have enough for the support it can't child cannot have enough people who love or support him or her and so what this bill will also do is allow. Now the the connection of familial relationships even if biological father the child's genetic identity does not want anything to do with the child that may not be the case for grandparents aunts uncles in other people so this would be consistent with Arkansas public policy of allowing establishing genetic identity and familial relationships and so I I think it's a good bill I don't think that anybody is going to come after president Clinton if that's what we're concerned about but I do think that it's it's a great option to have for people in Arkansas. Members are there any questions. Senior further questions we do have someone who signed up to speak against Senate bill three twelve judge Doug trance you're recognized come the in the table it. Yet your vacate your chair so we have room. Judge of Health state your name you're recognized to make your statement thank you my name is Doug transaminase circuit judge and circuit nineteen west which is up and County I'm also a member of the board of for the judicial council the judicial council has taken a position against this bill because it doesn't help an already complicated area of law the definitions are of the principal problem and I think you might ask yourself how silly is the question what is a presumed mother and that is just one of the obvious problems with this bill there are other concerns for instance it is possible if a father took custody of the child from birth how's he going to seek support from a presumed mother and there is that also creates the possibility that the child could be without a I declared mother which I think is obvious that that should be addressed for these reasons the council is taking a position against this bill and suggests that it does not help anything. I'm here for questions if there are any yes Sir represent Collins you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair and thank you judge so presume others in currents that you can tell me how it's used currently I'm not aware of president bother being used anywhere personally I except in the definitions of this particular proposal well follow up for you you're recognized so it says here in current law. Nine ten. One oh two. Going back to try to find us spare key to. More importantly what it says the court's granting and this is all existing language the courts creating a default paternity judgment shall be based on the presumed mother's affidavit of facts in which the presume other names the defendant as the father of her child and states the defendant's access during the period of conception you're correct it's it's years there and did not recognize that most everyone understand how to use currently well as defined kind character not the mother is the mother biologically gave birth to the child files that affidavit to start this process so present mother doesn't help us follow up please sorry you're recognized I'm not really understanding. At the languages in statute but you're saying it's not used at all I'm not saying it's not used to it just doesn't mean anything. Okay. The mother is the mother this is not a debate you're you're no bomb is you may not know who the father is there may be a chorus line of five potential fathers but the mother is the mother then what are we doing with this language in statute I have no idea you folks did. To shut. Members are there any other questions. Seeing no further questions thank you judge for your testimony today thank you very much for your time. If no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill senator Clark you're recognized to close for your bill. Get before he does that can I help clarify this presume other thing now we're at the point of a motion okay the thank you madam chair thank you members of the committee. three eleven three twelve are companion bills I worked a great deal with judicial council on three eleven of the they never voiced any opposition to me up till right now on three twelve we would have been happy to look at any concerns that they had if you look at Page two. A line ten I presenting a proceeding to adjudicate the parent to tell the child may be commenced at any time but shall only be commenced after the trial which is eighteen years of age of the child initiated a proceeding that certainly clarifies the law. that is a good point that that after reaching eighteen only the child can initiated but the child can't initiated it also has a very narrow window of Health father can also disapprove the father child relationship and it's there's a number of things. There that have to be taken into account and they all have to of be true of but it it clarifies that. for those cases where it would be necessary of this we're actually very simple bill that clarifies law and the president mother came from current law that's where our of. bill waters took it because to not have used it we've got criticism for not having Senate president mother because that's what's in the wall otherwise but it's a good bill that clears up. Of the law owned of adjudicating pro parentage after the age of eighteen and I would appreciate a good vote image skews me member senator Clark as close runners bill with the wishes of the committee. I have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion on the motion. Seeing no discussion all in favor please say aye. All opposed saying the. The ayes have it you've passed your bill thank you madam chair thank you members of the committee. Sir Clark I think that takes care of everything this is not I believe so and I appreciate your indulgence and calmness it here as we're all getting tired well thank you for following finding this on this into the capital. Members let's move to Senate bill three seventy three. Representing more you're recognized to come to the end of the table and present Senate bill three seventy three. Thank you madam chair my name is representative Jeremiah Moore District sixty one and it is an honor to present for the first time in front of the Judiciary Committee Senate bill three seventy three as a district bill that deals specifically with our local court system it's been asked by my district and effects Arkansas and Monroe County section one appeals the local district courts in Arkansas county effective on January first twenty twenty five and eliminates two part time local district judgeships in Arkansas county section two repeals a local District Court Monroe County effective January one twenty twenty five in this also eliminates to part time local district judgeships and Monroe County sections three and four proceed to establish a state District Court in the two counties to be known as the sixteenth judicial district this call will be served by two full time state district judges effective January one twenty twenty five the election for these two judgeships will be during the twenty twenty four nonpartisan judicial election departments are physical locations where court is held the state District Court will continue to hold Courtin Stargardt D. with Gillette St Charles Brinkley Clarendon and Holly Grove this recommendation is supported by the District Court resource assessment board otherwise known as the crab this is a large geographic area court is required to be held in all seven departments seven cities the areas currently served by four time part four by four part time judges and it's extremely challenging for a single full time district judge to service area but would provide greater access to criminal justice and these rural counties and these under served populations this would allow Monroe County and the Southern District of Arkansas county to establish drug court programs and these programs address substance use disorders work to reduce recidivism and are less. Costly than incarceration this would also allow all departments in the District Court to operate D. W. specialty court's with enhanced probation. It would have a positive impact on the circuit court as well organizing the district courts in Arkansas county and Monroe County in this manner will result in more efficient core operations and greater collaboration with the circuit courts in the first you digital circuit and eleventh each judicial circuit it's a good deal for the state and for the cities and counties cities and counties would be responsible for fifty eight thousand six hundred fifty dollars of the salary paid per judge the state's investment is limited to that portion of the state district judges salary that exceeds that amount and cities and counties remain responsible for one hundred percent of the operating expenses of the state District Court this is at full speed widespread support among the local bar associations and the local judges and these two counties and it being my district I would greatly appreciate a good vote if you have any questions I'll be happy to try to answer them members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill represented more you're recognized to close for your bill closer to make a motion to pass members represent more as close for his bill as a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion of the motion saying no discussion all in favor please say aye All opposed say no congratulations you have passed your bill. Represent medics. Members if you'll go to Senate bill three fifty nine Senate bill three fifty nine eighty medics you're recognized. To come to the in the table of president Senate bill three fifty nine are you asking for Mr crest come yes membership that's okay that's for Mister Kraft join me at the table scraps you're welcome to join representative medics at the table. Thank you madam chair. Committee I do want to say before we start I haven't had the opportunity to come to this committee very often the session but this is a really good committee well look around this really really say that you know we may have gotten you a long ways at the front but we're tired committee so good luck. Thank you this is otherwise that the us that this is a completely agreed upon bill this is Senate bill three fifty nine is amended section of code that establishes the rates they can be charged for producing medical records the statute has been in use for attorneys preparing for trials for years and so one thing it's doing is it's adding insurance companies Robin Jones committees to the statute to allow them this access we also requirement if the records are available electronically they are to be sent electronically we are not mandating or prescribing the format that they have to be sent in Wesley does establish the fee that can be charged for the electronic records and I do want to point out again that all of the stakeholders in this matter have completely agreed it did take some negotiation in time but that is that is in essence the bill. Members are there any questions. We seeing the questions the only individual we have signed up to speak for the bill is Mr classes at the end of the table would you like to add anything to what representive Maddox said no ma'am I think he explained it very well be happy to answer any questions members any questions. Seeing no questions represent Medicare recognized to close for the bill time closed out appreciate a good vote members represent Maddox is cause for the bill with the wishes of the committee we have a motion to do pass on the table is there any discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion please say aye any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you have passed your bill thank you madam chair of the committee. Senator Teague you're recognized to come to the end of the table members if you'll turn to Senate bill seven Senate bill seven Senator Teague you're recognized if you'll identify yourself you may present your bill. Senator Bryan king District twenty eight. You're recognized thank you madam chair thank you committee members committee what Senate bill seven is about if you know we are currently dealing with a criminal justice issues and one of them is fit in all if you know the origins of that now actually came from because oxy and then that went to her when the now what went to fit in all so what's the card was approved by the FDA in nineteen ninety five and is that point time most of time opiates were just generally prescribe for end of block oxycontin was the brainchild to produce farmer which is primarily owned by the Sackler family it is based in Connecticut and its promotion and sales arms is run out of corporate tax Sabin Delaware in nineteen ninety six a training session for doctors said addiction was exceedingly rare produced by Purdue pharma. In fact produce formalized and misled when they said that the drug had addiction rates of less than one percent. Senate bill seven is about holding a criminal standard to people when their life or harm is is done by people that mislead people on the drugs we go out here it's really easy to go after this it's not easy but it's much different we should have a different standard collector street drug dealers that we do country drug dealers to mislead people. they should be held to the same standard we should not let money power and influence be a barrier to justice this will be a big task there's no doubt about it if this bill is actually implemented but it's very small to the lot of work that was done from a lot of people earlier they got were we today is legislators or deal with millions of dollars from the opioid settlement. That came about by dedication of a lot of product of of US attorneys and lot of career U. S. attorneys allotted journalist and a lot of people that stood up and said you know there's something going on here early alarm ringers were consistently labeled as troublemakers coaxing rebel rousers good people like Dr art B. and C. and sister Bette Davies in the southern central Appalachian region raise concerns Purdue pharma tried by those early alarm ringers off with grants but they refused in one case a reporter had his job threatened pressured because he was told not to write anything critical of oxy cotton U. S. attorney John Bradley has been praised for his work for refusing to quit to try and find out the truth about the damages of oxy cotton grade would as a product to best cater two U. S. attorney's office did a lot of work in exposing what happened there US attorneys Randy career ram we are clear attorneys Randy Ramsey and Richemont castle spent years going after Purdue pharma to expose what happened there and the damage that it did and because of their work and the reason I mention them is because we are now the beneficiaries of having millions of dollars in settlements from the with their work to take on a big task to be able to treat the addiction of pop star boxy cotton and opiates. So you know I'm here to tell you that we have to do something we should not have a standard of justice that that we know what price to one person but does not apply to the executives of a drug company that knowingly mislead people and let me say the key praise of this bill to be prosecuted is. If you look on page two line for the person knowingly hides conceals omits or otherwise withholds evidence documentation information that prescription drug has dangerous effects. We've had four hundred thousand people since nineteen ninety die of drug overdoses related opens at seven Vietnam wars so I think it's time that we have is that standard of justice that we hold the drug executives that knowingly mislead people and harm and kill them the same way we would street drug dealer or country drug dealer he just because millionaires want to become billionaires and have money empire new permit you should not shield him from justice when they harm or kill people as the case with oxycontin with that I'd take any questions. represent Richardson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair of center came how does this bill intersect with though one the represented Gazaway just past a little bit ago regarding fentanyl it it probably does not this bill to be implemented like I said be honest it's a big task let me remind everybody there is a sunset clause in this bill while the bills we do probably need sunset clauses if this bill is not used or cannot be implemented for whatever reason then this bill goes away this is a window to try to have an opportunity to hold people accountable to drug executives accountable when they harm somebody so it really doesn't you know the process it would have to be taken on in this case would be that you would have to find the case in the sex the next step would be part of funding for it I mean we have a lot avenues for funding that we do have that the the local prosecutors don't have them. The resources to do that if you would take something bigger on a much larger level that that would not be an extra burden or task on them so I don't see a conflict you know. C. Richardson do you have a follow up. No no. Members any other questions represent Gazaway you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair. Senator Teague I absolutely agree with your intent and what you're trying to do here I think what these executives did and in many of these cases particularly in the opioid. with regard to the opioid drugs that you've referenced I think it's was absolutely criminal I think it was a scheme designed in which people. it started with them the manufacturers and those of the it's a big drug companies and I think it's criminal the concern that I have with regard to the statutes or couple won. I mean under just general principles of criminal liability in order to hold someone accountable for crime in the state of Arkansas they have to actually committed the crime in Arkansas. And so. How do you propose to hold corporate executives who may have never stepped foot in Arkansas criminally liable for a crime in our in the state of Arkansas. First off if there's not a nexus they would've made a settlement to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars so there's that there's obviously a damage there you just mentioned in your own words there was actually a crime committed they wouldn't be settling down here in Arkansas if there wasn't actually something type of damage done so once again we have the harm. You know your lawyer represent Gazaway if you know people that we can sue that we did not do nothing to them and get money out of it wed let me know we might look at that but I'm just saying there's obviously damage or they would made the settlement they did down here so there's an obvious nexus between the two you're recognized for a follow up follows thank you madam chair and that you know again I agree with you senator king in that there's no question that they marketed those drugs in the State of Arkansas there's no question that they sold those drugs in the state of Arkansas of the companies themselves but you know once again it for purposes of civil liability which is the settlements that you reference clearly there is a nexus with the state of Arkansas clearly you know they prevail themselves if you will of the of the forum in Arkansas and I think or accountable to or to be held liable in the state of Arkansas civilly but criminalized the is it is a different matter than civil liability and I agree that that's why they settled in Arkansas certainly there civilly liable again to hold someone criminally liable they have to have committed the crime in the state and I just are you aware of any. Of these executives that have. Actually step foot in the state of Arkansas and. Committed these crimes in the state of Arkansas what is your words earlier you needed they were there was a crime committed so we we met that we met there is a damage the reality is like we're a border the Carroll County report County Missouri so we have a lot of crime that comes cross cross court borders you know we've had instances of where people have been charged in Missouri but yet they didn't set foot yet that situation of going to be across the line you have a bookie but yet the runners come down here and in transaction the beds across the state line you know then they can still be charged. Even though they didn't come down here in Arkansas president yes we recognized for one more follow up thank you manager at. You know maybe under some concept of some accomplice liability Maybe you can get that I would be interested kind of hearing from the prosecuting attorney's. Perspective on this just from promotional purposes only not asking to take a position on the bill but one of the other things that I find interesting about the bill and to be up to this committee as to whether or not they think it's a problem but the penalty is from not more. I'm sorry not less than one year and not more than life in prison which is I'm I think this kind of unprecedented in terms of the potential criminal penalty in Arkansas law Are you aware of any other statutes that impose a. Alti like that aren't you wouldn't Senator Gilmore proposing extra penalties prevent all if they prescribe and all. This. Senator king if you haven't been to my committee and we don't get in the back with the answer if you answers questions that'll be great if you don't have an answer that's fine too so we have extra penalties that we're doing for somebody that prescribe spent on this leads people we should have the same penalty for the drug exempted it drug executives even though they don't live here in the state I mean we have situations where people have been prosecutor you know charged in in another part of the state that was part of a criminal enterprise that happened down here I mean that's that's actually happened I mean our law enforcement works well in Missouri but we've had situations where don't I I mean I think that the penalty part is because we've been unprecedented with the amount of death and destruction that is being caused by the misleading of oxy cotton and I just don't think the drug executives should be should be no let off the hook I mean it once again I have sensitive this bill this bill will be the if it is not prosecuted if there's not a thing it's done in four years this bill goes away but we have an unprecedented instance of oxy cotton and the damage is done in our mind everybody here oxy cotton started then it moved to help everyone and now it's moved to fit now. I don't know it's unprecedented we've had that type of situation that's why the unprecedented crimes parties so you know if we have one drug dealer out here that overdoses three people he may get life in prison if you look at the drug executives of oxycontin that lied and misled people we know that Bob doctors they even prescribe went to level prescribing giving bigger bonuses to their sales people that prescribe hundred sixty milligram pills I mean they bribed doctors they they have done everything. I don't know why we could not have a penalty range of this could magnitude they're the ones that cause the situation. This is not a this is not a solution and in search of a problem this is a problem and then this is trying to be a solution. But you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair and and I think that to represent Gazaway point there's a difference between the criminal burden of proof and and civil I mean you've got that preponderance of evidence versus beyond a reasonable doubt and so I don't know that we can necessarily consider the civil settlements and and criminal penalties an apples to apples comparison but I wonder if you considered whether or not running this bill is going to affect the ability of prosecutors use their discretion hi I'm to go up the chain and to figure out who should be criminalized criminally liable are we not taking that discretion away from the prosecutors in the state to do what we we rely on them to do and in the course of their investigation I think if you you know study some of the Rico statutes and what they did in taking down the mafia they went after the godfathers and then they use the chain so my thing is not to complicate it is this is to go after the the the source of the problem and that is the executives in the family people that literally this act of family you know we're just lining killing people and knew they were lining killing people and hurting people just because you know millionaires want to be beginners and I understand about the level cross to the up a big knowledge in this that this is a big task but I'll also say if you study this issue and you know you watch the series dope sick on Hulu you read the books by Beth Macy dope sick you read these things you will see these career prosecutors and some of the appointed prosecutors they want to years of obstacles work and everything like that now we're we are going to easily spent not easily but we are we're getting millions of dollars in settlements to try and deal with that because of their work even though the level of you know the produce farmer people even threaten the job of reporter that try to write anything critical I mean this is this is the level these people go after to shield herself and we should be shielded our citizens by making sure those executives notified knowingly mislead people I have put in this bill to try and. Make the language is clear as possible. And I'll go back to this if the person knowingly hides conceals limits and otherwise withhold evidence documentation information prescription drug testing for specs I mean this ought to cotton thing when it started out came in office can you remember when but this was in the mid two thousands so this started in the late nineties so we're in the mid two thousands we were dealing with the cloud after this it happened in trying to figure out which way to go in every point of every state legislator in every meeting we went to was about how to deal with this because we didn't know how to deal with it other states tried to jump out there and deal with this issue real abruptly will that to ship people here one and once again if this goes after the source of the problem if the judge executives are knowingly misleading people. Represent college you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair and they center so I guess I'm coming back to some you mentioned that we're letting these exact is off the hook but I really I mean we do have a lot of federal led efforts to bring justice already under federal law right I mean these are hundreds of millions of dollars of civil settlements sometimes with criminal penalties under criminal law a bill that you know I guess would purport to put one of these executives in an Arkansas jail it just doesn't seem like it's tracking with what we already do federally to you know to bring justice so I mean do you not think federal law and I guess the answer's nobody of the federal laws adequate to handle this or do you think it's not being pursued adequately what what do you think the issue is the deficiency with federal law so it's not a deficiency with federal law I just don't feel like we should always depend on the federal offense to protect us and I'll give you some examples I gave a great example of how the fed stepped up at least in the civil part for years and tried you know we are the benefit of getting millions of dollars settlement what they did step up to on the criminal part I think that we should we should not always depend on the feds in one situation to go the level of how these a drug executives and oxycontin doing so U. S. attorney appointed US attorney J. McCloskey in Maine he fought oxy cotton he stopped the hundred sixty gram milligram pills he did that he then left his job against go good guess we went to work for. Purdue pharma. Did you already went to work for Purdue pharma I mean these people know how to steal things in the federal government that is what our founders did that allowed states to be able to step up and protect their citizens because they know sometimes offense may not be able to when we have situations down here of we're you know me the members I came in with now return federal prison awaiting to go due to federal prosecutors there was people in the State myself for everyone that stepped up and said that we should step up and do it the legislature failed in a lot of ways to do that so the feds did something good and one thing but then they fail because we shouldn't just depend on the feds to do everything and like I said if you go through the the thing of rainy Ramseur recall Castell great would the police political appointee yes Tony Bradley I mean it was a monumental task for them to do that and so I just feel like if we're going to be the benefits of getting hundreds of million dollars maybe we should step up a little bit click follow up you're recognized for a follow up and I appreciate that position that I guess when I think about the fact that this is largely down the federal level with state's paying benefits years and I think about representative Gazaway is point that you have to be in the state to be prosecuted really in the state it's it seems to me like what we really might be doing is just chilling pharmaceutical companies from locating here I mean because they're gonna be able to do what they do and avoid prosecution under this law if they are not you know here to be prosecuted I don't think that the it I don't think that's or you know something to raise I do think it back to the point of represent gas ways things we have been I want to go back to the border counties we've had people charge cross the state line that did not come down here before that happen a lot but it has happened the second part is that in a what was your second question so. Okay it's all together I'm just saying we have to step up that that is all there is to it our citizens deserve to be protected we should not always depend on the federal government we have a very politically divided where when one party gets in the power and they appointed US attorneys one side locks it one side not I'm not into that I mean if we're going to benefit from spending all this money and getting all this money then we should step up to to do our part to protect citizens we should always depend on the federal government it can be great it could be politicized and they could be busy doing other things to members any other questions. Seeing the questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill sooner can you're recognized because for your bill thank you members I need somebody make a motion and pass this bill we need to step up and protect to protect the citizens of Arkansas personally it once is a wicked flee as when none pursue it and that's what's happened we need a criminal standard not just a civil what these if these drug executives can know that all they going to have is a civil penalty to pay for something then why would they want to protect the citizens that they know they may not be criminally prosecuted in this I mean this bill sunsets every question has been raised here has been a ballot question and because of that I put a sunset in this bill were it's not it goes away it's just that simple that we have to step up and protect the citizens of Arkansas money and power and influence and while no one spoke against this bill you know we don't have the big pharma people sitting here. I mean we also have the victims of the opioid we don't have the victims of the federal people speak up. Opiates being prescribed to young people in trying to get high that the pretty Palmer call peel bilis at one time you know that was a different situation we have a lot of elderly people I was here during the mid two thousands when we had elderly people one family for example had a family member of father that never took drugs of any kind limited very hardworking noble life and then got addicted to oxycontin they then went to the doctor and said you know what our diets change in what's going on we need to do something you know what the doctor did kept prescribing to all because millionaires want to become billionaires that's it and we just need a simple justice system that doesn't allow money and power and influence to get out of causing harm homicide. Member senator excuse me Sir king has close for his bill with the wishes of the committee. With a motion to do pass on the table is there any discussion on the motion. Per se more you're recognized for discussion on the motion. So I'm I'm that thank you madam chair I'm no lawyer and obviously the opioid epidemic it is been devastating both our state and our country but this is a pretty. That's a pretty big change in and I'm always hesitant when we start changing the law of the land because these laws have lasting implications and. We ought to move carefully as we proceed thank cast our votes not just on this but on any piece of legislation And I would be interested to hear from other attorneys of the table. Because on. Page two lines four and five it says the person talking about the C. EO or CFO or executive knowingly hides conceals a or otherwise withholds evidence documentation or information the center of. I'm a little uncomfortable because it doesn't just says of minute or withhold evidence that says knowingly hides or conceals and those two words are fairly vague You know oftentimes a prescription the directions on the drug or underneath the label is that concealing or hiding. The proper instructions and then it says down the line seven and eight a person as prescribed the prescription of the drug what happens if the person it doesn't make any exception if the person disregards of prescriptive directions of the drug and so. Not being an attorney but having these questions. Maybe if somebody could provide some light and I apologize I should as you senator I just had already you know you cannot answer when the discussion part time framing this in my head and what I ask myself is this even a valid question or concern but I did feel like I needed to say something about this language thank you members any other discussion. Represent the field you're recognized for discussion on the motion yes ma'am thank you madam chair Mr Kean referenced godfathers. And in the past in the mob. The mob bosses in the godfathers would go and and they get their ten percent. These executives. One over a hundred percent. And we got the bodies to prove. And I think it's time that we take a stand against these executives who for will know what they're doing. Just so they can get a bigger yacht a bigger window. In run across that X. of our state. They're preying on children. And what the federal law is currently doing. Is not working and we the bodies to prove it I'll be yes vote bankers that the members to do the same thank you. Members any other discussion. Seeing no further discussion we have a motion of do pass on the tape on the floor is there all in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no. The nose handed the bill has failed members next we're taking up Senate bill eight since we have Senator team here so Senator you're recognized once again just for record purposes if you identify yourself and you're recognized to present Senate bill eight Senator Bryan King district twenty eight thank you madam chair and thank you matters committee Senate bill eight is along the same lines I won't take up a lot of time because I know we have time there's no sense discussion people along the same situation of what I've used in the oxy cotton case it comes to be with the vaccines the same way if there's harm a homicide caused by that in a conceal evidence then that knowingly they harm people then we should help them at the same accountable sent. Okay membership heard the explanation of the bill are there any questions to senator king representative profit you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair senator king and reading this bill what comes to my mind. Is will probably suing the wrong people. Rather than the executives in the CEOs. Would you not agree that we should be held in the United States Food and Drug Administration who have approved this vaccines. That hurt people. So first off we're not suing them we're holding him criminally responsible the same way we would any other drug dealer here in Arkansas that causes harm House side the second part is to represent us to the video that showed that the FDA they did approve this process but yet they were lied to before they approved it okay so the do we've we've been to the court cases of the RP oxy cotton case where they lied to the FDA about the damages of that the second part is about the FDA raise questions money in a represent us video they showed that in as study of certain predecessors with the FDA fifty eight percent of all left their job at the FDA to go to work for big pharma the same people they approved the drugs. So this process needs of a lot of work and stuff to make sure that these drugs are safe in these people need to be criminally responsible not simply not just simply. The following you're recognized on another part of the bill it talks about that vaccines are tested ten to twelve years. if we are talking about. The covert vaccine. It was not tested as normal vaccines are tested yet through the drug um the US drug impede administration it was put out there as being safe. For Americans to take so I'd go back to that if. I just see that there are many loops in this in my mind we are not holding the ones accountable who need to be held accountable no matter whether they get billions or millions or whatever I just think we need to look deeper into this state who is truly responsible for people who have been hurt by vaccines would you not agree. No I would agree that the drug executives that knowingly mislead people and our people are the ones that need to be held responsible they're the ones that live. Opportunities to this I don't. And it is only if they are found guilty. And the like I said I read in the bill what sunsets in four years. Any other questions represent Gazaway you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair similar to the last bill is it possible that we can have someone from the prosecutor coordinator's office or the prosecuting attorney's association come for informational purposes Mister Smith. Gentlemen if you will identify yourself the record my name's Nathan Smith on prosecuting attorney and then County. Daniel shoe I'm prosecuting attorney's bashing county to a judicial district I'm also the chair for the Arkansas prosecuting attorneys association represent Gazaway do you have particular questions I do thank you madam chair I guess my questions are the same as last. On the last bill I'd like to get your thoughts on. Holding someone criminally responsible in the state of Arkansas you know particularly an executive officer CEO CFO other individual managerial authority holding them criminally responsible in the state of Arkansas they never step foot in the state of Arkansas at I agree with senator kings intent on all of this I wanna make that very clear But practically is this something that we can do. Well so when I think you you already people are raised earlier obviously that the civil civil the idea of minimum contacts versus criminal liability so you you'd I guess first of all have to establish criminal intent and then you have to say that there is at least one element of the crime committed in in the state of Arkansas so yeah I mean it would be very difficult now we don't as association have a position on the bill one one way or the other but that certainly would be a challenge and then you have some other legal problems with it you know at the federal level I would think you're recognized for a follow up thank you manager and then to my other questions about. An unclassified felony one you're not less than one year nor more than life are there any other criminal offenses they have penalty somewhere that I'm not saying that. some of these folks who've done some of the things that senator king is outlined would be deserving is really severe punishment but to style punishment that weighed in Arkansas statute or you wear many others where we actually do that. No I'm not aware of anything like that. You're recognized for a question. Thank you this is directed to the to the prosecutors the in the table to I keep coming back to to set the proof you would have to put on in the causation issue and especially in terms of hi trying to prove that the vaccine was the cause especially given the fact that you know Americans on so many other medications and you know lifestyle smoking all those things and it can you even in you know share with us what it would take to get through with that kind of the culmination causation conundrum and in terms of trying to put on proof of of vaccine harm under this bill what we spoke to senator king about the the same issues number one it's territorial applicability and number two is preemption I mean if the a approves things under our system of government Mr Schiff you can get up a little closer to the microphone under our system of government you've got you've got an issue with the feds it times preempt state laws so that that is an issue would go on more to your question who is going to investigate this I'm in my office I don't have any investigators so this is going to be as a practical matter who's going to whatever evidence we need somebody's gonna have to clean it bring it to us before we can make the call that that being said those are those are issues that we've talked to Senator king about we're not for or against I mean the idea is something that's offensive if they're hurting our Kansans but the practical of. Applicability of it is very problematic. Represent Gazaway did you have another question members are there any other questions thank you gentlemen for coming to the end of the table. We have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill Senator king you're recognized close for your bill I'll be brief report so I want to it It dress the thing with the prosecutors there's nothing that they didn't say that's one one hundred percent correct it would be a big task to do it but I want to say this again had the career US attorneys that I talked about earlier had the political appointees that I talked about earlier had the people that wrote books and investigated that had they equipped. Do you know what we would have today. I mean these people had practical problems in addressing everything that they did to get to the point where they're handing us literally hundreds of millions of dollars to deal to settlement. I I mean I understand everything that everybody is saying and I even address that and that's why I put the sunset clause in the bill I know this is going to be a big monumental task. It would take a lot to prosecuted but look at the damage that has been done one reason this is a president again we have not had any unprecedented damage that we use oxy cotton case. And the backs in case it does happen that way like I said we have to step up and and protect the citizens of Arkansas there are a lot of problems and questions that have to be prosecuted did get to this point but also that those things were overcome in the previous thing in mention taken on these people to civil penalties if this drug executives in these big companies can make billions of dollars off the taxpayer's. Then they ought to be criminally prudent held responsible. And we talk about the origins well if a meth dealer out here. Since hearing cooks meth and it kills people we hold him accountable why should we let the drug executives off when they do the same exact thing. With that employs cynically king his close for his bill with the wishes of the committee. Seeing it motion to pass with a motion to do pass on the table is a discussion on the motion seeing no discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no. The nose habit the bill has failed. Sir can you have one more do you want to come back after session of. Okay you can come back after we're going to meet ten minutes upon adjournment of the house. How he can run it at that time. Okay we'll take him up then later on thank you. Going to take we're going right down the agenda we're going to take one more bill before we recess for lunch because the house will be going into session at one o'clock so the next bill on our agenda is Senate bill four oh six and I'll be presenting that for senator Hammer and so I'm asking vice chair berry to take over. Ma'am chair take a seat at the end of the table them for yourself for the record in you may proceed with your bill. Thank you Mr chair with your permission I have a judge Ernest brown with me that's okay the will can Mr brown judge brown would you please identify yourself here thank you Mr vice chair members of the committee on this Brown junior circuit judge eleven judicial district west as Jefferson Lincoln counties I've been on the bench for fifteen years and I handle juvenile court matters in pine bluff in Star City. Members this is a a juvenile justice bill brought to us by the juvenile judges in the state of Arkansas really the only changes that you really find in this bill is over on page two under B. three and what we are doing is this in juvenile justice bill to the route is is striking a balance of juvenile rehabilitation and accountability this is dealing with extended juvenile jurisdiction so when you turn over to page three you'll see that there are specific offenses that are set out in the statute so that if a juvenile is fourteen or fifteen years so and they commit one of the following crimes being Capital murder murder in the first degree all the big ones that and there's a list good number of them if they do that then there is the possibility not the requirement but the possibility that they would be A part of the extended juvenile jurisdiction program for those of you who may not realize for now with the juvenile extended juvenile jurisdiction program is to have a juvenile might be Senate center that gives them really an opportunity to receive more services to be dealt with in in a longer fashion then if it otherwise but anyway what this bill is doing is enumerating those offenses which had not been enumerated before making that very clear that they could be extended juvenile jurisdiction on that and then when you go to page three which would also falls under section be part for its dropping the age from seventeen to sixteen that the juvenile may then be subject to the extended juvenile jurisdiction if they engage in conduct for which they could have been charged as an adult and I may have done that considerably and I'm going to let the experts who deals with this on an everyday basis speak to it you're recognized thank you Mr vice chair madam chair did a great job I've had over the course of fifteen years you could have been charged under this statute in base is given an opportunity for blended sentence part of juvenile part of built so I've had some that have gone through and up to twenty first birthday they have been rehabilitated and they move on with their lives and some have had the opportunity to do it and they have not and I've had imposing a bill Senate so he's giving those utilities particular circumstance opportunity to come to the juvenile court system and not to have to give an adult Senate so. With that I'm open for any questions. Mr Collins. Thank you Mr chair and this may be a question for the judge so I noticed that on the list of crimes that are now provided as opposed to being referenced for the fourteen and fifteen year olds This is a small change but it was a change from any felony committed while armed with a firearm to any felony involving a firearm so I don't know is that the same as it was orders or their felonies that involve a firearm that aren't necessarily ones committed when armed with a firearm. It may be the same I just didn't know if that was an intentional thing welcome no Sir it was that there was not an intentional thing the is representative Dalby said the intention was to actually spell out what those offenses were so it was not previously delayed it but the the big thing about what we're doing was on the third page to sixteen and seventeen year olds that Julie to prosecutor have the opportunity to file as an adult or filed in juvenile court so now the third option is available to do a blended sentence and so that's the the big change about what we're doing is to provide more opportunities for those that are sixteen and seventeen to get the JJ which is not provider right now also ahead of representative Collins that the prosecutors are not opposed to it is not there be but we have verified they are not opposed to it okay thanks are there any further questions from the committee. C. none of the style of your. Title for your bill I am members I am because the bill and I make a motion to do pass okay a further discussion on the motion. Okay all those in favor of the motion to say I. Opposed no. You have passed your bill thank you Mr chair thank you members of the committee thank you. We'll wait till the chairman gets back. All right members we have come to the twelve o'clock hour as you well know we have to be on the House floor at one o'clock so we will go into recess come back don't leave me Hangin come back ten minutes after adjournment because at that point in time we would have. Six bills and the criminal justice bill so seven Bills so come back ten minutes upon adjournment we are in recess.