Judiciary Committee - Senate

Is. Now comes the order. Share sees a club quorum. First I'd like to introduce our pages for today. We have some pages of senator Mickey. Lily Fankhauser will you stand. Hi lily. And Reagan McKee we stand hi read again. You wouldn't happen to be related to the senator would you. She's claiming you yeah. We're glad to have you Reagan. And then we have three others that are from Senator English is district Charles Andrews are you in here. Hi Charles. And Q. Li Walker. Hello Keeley. And chase Tucker. Chase. If you have a senator in here with the same last name are you all related to. No although there is claiming the senators in here. What we're glad to have you in here. Hope you all are having a good day and we'll have a good day and learned a lot about our civics in Arkansas. That's it. We're gonna start with the Senate bill ninety six senator Wallace. Go to the end of the table you'll be recognized. Senate bill ninety six. Please identify yourself senator Wallace in you're recognized. Thank you minister senator Dave Wallace District nineteen. Members this is a. Bill. About sexual offenders about the list about their victims. Twenty four years ago in my hometown we had a child that was. Molested by her stepfather. No one would have thought that a visual was crippled and things like that. What the court found guilty. I spent a very short time incarcerated came out. Many years later more than fifteen that individual applied. To be removed from the sexual offenders list. Which is normal in the allowed to that fifteen years. But the victim was a notified in this case it was victims in the state of Arkansas. In the state of Arkansas. Sexual abuse victims are not notified. When the abuser applies to get all the sexual offenders list. Last summer. The child. Who was twelve at the time not to my door Sunday afternoon. Thirty four year old young lady very ticklish. Dune will. Still Hester thirty. Why didn't someone tell me. Why didn't someone do something about this. Members this bill. Simply says that when. A sexual offender applies in court to be removed from the sexual offenders list then the victim or victim's. Have to be notified if those victims have opted in in if those victims have given the appropriate authorities this case finds their information have kept updated. Fine would be responsible to notify the victim that Hey your manager is going to apply. To be removed. If the victims don't often. Bonded after notify vine just has to notify the folks that have opted in and they just have to notify them. At their last known address. And with that I stand by for your questions. Thank you senator Wallace members are there any questions of the. Senator Wallace. If not no one is signed up to speak for against the bill. So would you like to close for your bill senator Wallace ma'am would you like to close for you will yes ma'am thank you as members I'm closed thank you. I have a motion to pass from senator Gilmore second from senator Mickey all those in favor say aye. Those opposed no your bill is passed thank you senator Wallace you members. Senator Patty do you have a bill yes ma'am what is it. The Senate bills. Are they on our agenda yes. This is the language and. Okay well if you're ready. Senate bill five to four persons. Please identify yourself you're recognized. Thank you madam chair jim petty Senator district twenty nine. Members Senate bill five twenty four is a revision to the identification bureau statute and twelve twelve one oh five the current law states a background check for non criminal justice purpose must be submitted to the division by an electronic means this this bill will propose to change the words electronic means to live scan the only way to submit fingerprints for non criminal justice purposes is using live scan that this wording just needs to be changed because they have had customers try to submit fingerprints through email and the online criminal background check system racist cannot receive fingerprints of the email we do not believe it's a controversial and this change is really clarifying the wording and with that I'm happy to try to answer any questions or we have representatives from the state police to to to be available as well. Is live scan of the brand name of a product or something or is that just that identify a means of. Of delivery it is a it is a a digital system electronic system. Is it generic or is it particular to a company I would I would let to major might more your come up if that's okay with you madam chair and he maybe could answer that better than myself please identify yourself with. Mike Moyer the Arkansas state police madam chair of the board live scan is just identifying a machine it's not a brand the specific is just machine okay thank you for that members of the any other questions. If not. No one is signed up to speak for or against the bill. Would you like to close for your bill senator Patty yes ma'am madam chair I am close and I would appreciate a good vote okay and what's the will of the committee. Motion to pass by Senator McKee second by Senator Gilmore all those in favor say aye. Those opposed no ayes have it thank you. Five twenty five Senate bill five twenty five yes ma'am we are not going to present that one today it is one dealing with an issue that's been around for some time down here I've spoken to the parties that have objection to some of the content of it and we've agreed that we're going to meet after session and see if we can't we'll have a workable solution that everyone can agree to and so we're gonna pass over that one. Okay we got sounds like you will pull it down all together yes ma'am pull it down altogether okay and your next bill Senate bill five to six yes ma'am Senate bill five twenty six. This one that is also proposing to change Arkansas code annotated twelve twelve one zero zero six eight concerning the collection of DNA sample from a person arrested for a criminal offense this amendment would add the following language. If a jail detention facility booking facility is using rapid DNA technology to take the DNA sample from individuals arrested for felony offense or convicted of a felony offense said sample shall not be retained or stored after completion of the rapid DNA process and rapidity of a process is is a an automated process of obtaining an accurate DNA profile without the need for human analysis law enforcement enforcement booking story stations can take a cheek swab of an individual under arrest insert the sample into the rapid DNA instruments and obtain a DNA profile within ninety minutes this DNA profile is transferred electronically compared to other samples within the combined DNA index system or CODIS and and searched against unsolved violent crimes while they arrested individual is still in the custody of the detention facility but since the DNA samples collected from the rest individual are being analyzed at the booking station the in the actual OB is never submitted to the laboratory must be rid must not be retained or stored by that booking agency after the rapid DNA process is complete we do not believe that this is controversial the the language is simply adding the following to the existing statute saying that the sample shall not be retained or stored after completion of the rapid DNA identification process and with that I'm happy to answer any questions. So it's understandable that the sample would be retained but is the analysis retained. So I am going to actually call the director of the crime lab if they're here for the deputy director. If you come to the table and identify himself who he's with. You're recognized. Hi my name's current channel the Director state crime lab. And to your question the DNA profile itself is not retained or the information sociais to with the. by the law enforcement entity. Even for a person that's been convicted. Yeah absolutely when the rest of the process happens then that the the sample will be collected the digital DNA profile would be submitted to the crime laboratory and we house all the information there so we'll be able to identify who the individual is and confirm that it is actually a true DNA hit. Well maybe I'm not stating my question the. Clearly what I want to know I understand the sample itself won't be retained. But what will the profile be retained it will only be retained within the DNA database at the Arkansas state crime lab not at the booking facility okay so that if there are future of crimes that. This profile might be compared with the it is available at your. Crime lab that's correct thank you any other questions from committee. Seeing none no one signed up to speak for against the bill would you like to close for your bill senator Patty thank you madam chair I am close to and I with that I'd appreciate a good vote. And what's the will of the committee. Senate. We'll soon Senator bubble Hester was the loudest give him the motion. And and and Senator Tucker. Finally speaking up. He is a seconded the motion all those in favor say aye. Those opposed no. Is have it your bill has passed thank you madam chair thank you Committee thank you. And we see we've got a chair back and I'm happy to. Give him this chair here now. Just hold on a second. Mr Graham you're recognized. Still invite yourself for the record. My name is at Grambling state representative for district fifty. You're recognized thank you. Thank you chair thank you committee house bill seventeen twenty nine simply adds a licensed massage therapist to the mandated reporter list question is why we need to and massage their massage therapists mandated reporter list but simply many students are getting more services especially in our student athletes my massage therapist over the overtime to confirm relationship it's easy to see if they are providing the size Hey would you that previous questions come and then they would need to report that information to to prevent more child abuse. number on that bill is. House Bill seventeen twenty nine seventeen twenty nine yes Sir. Do you have anyone here the used you don't have anyone here to speak no Sir okay any questions from committee. June one audience would like to speak for against the bill. We have questioned Russia recognized. Okay the. Besides their presenter department health now correct. I would I would assume I don't know the answer that question. You don't know who the sides therapies under now no Sir. DO this massage therapy have a board. Yes you got feedback from the board. NO service bill was actually brought to me by a detective is that a number of cases that they're working on and found this is an issue so. If you had input from anyone else. No Sir. Okay. From committee. The rest is there is there not somebody here from from detective or law enforcement is requested this. Anyone here from law enforcement. No one here senator Russ. Senator has. Remember in which was this bill filed like how long ago was it filed this bill is filed last week for clarity Robin Lundstrum gave it to give it to me she she had a lot of the work and detectives G. Eckert I believe Julie ECR was our name has seen some issues with this and brought to robin robin and it off to me to run for it but it was filed Monday or Tuesday last I mean I can get to the eight B. as thirty going to House last week yeah thanks. So you're more you're recognized it and I pretty sure that this is they fall under part of health and I don't see anybody in the room from the Department of Health yeah that's what I thought okay thank you. And any other questions from committee. You saying saying none are you ready to close for your bill now I'm close I appreciate a good vote we have a we have a motion do pass we have a second. The second. Is there any discussion. All those in favor say aye opposed. March you will pass. Thank you chair thank you may. Is there anyone else in your words from the bill a test. Five four six. Our center if you want to go and recognize yourself for the record. You're recognized. State senator bart Hester district thirty three and Members are you know I the risk of time but as I was sitting here looked up of Mr perish call me Friday nasty to me with him before the meeting on this and I I did not do it so I in I just need to be transferred transparent at when I looked up and saw him a few seconds ago that is are there any other bills that anyone else is going to run Senator Tucker you have a bill. Okay well if if if it's okay I would like to get behind them and give me go visit with Mister Paris for just a moment is data out of respect he he did ask me in plenty of time and I just didn't do it so somebody else's if if the chairman be okay with that. Yeah I with a scent Tucker V. one going present your bill easier. Okay Senator Gilmore if you want to go and present your bill will wait on. Senator Hester. Fifteen of our Senate bill fifty this house bill. The. House Bill fifteen oh three. Thank you Mr members committee Senator Gilmore district one. Not Daniel hsu prosecuting attorney for the twelfth judicial district to Sebastian County and also the chair for the Arkansas prosecuting attorneys association. What you're recognized thank you bill thank you share the this bill just creates a subsection additional section as it deals with chop shops in the criminal code with that I'm an **** Mr shoot to walk you through some of the details of it. Thank you Sir thank you chair There's been several reports in the news lately about the. Car thefts in the Arkansas I've got one from KNWA reported that automobile sensor sharply on the rise across the country Arkansas has seen a double digit increase in the rate of threats thefts over the last decade it is stated there's a thirty three percent increase in car thefts in Arkansas since two thousand eleven. Finally cut K. A. I. T. reported Arkansas was has the sixteenth largest increase in car thefts since two thousand eleven. if we look around us all the surrounding states have chop shop legislation Mississippi code the sixteen a sixty three twenty three six forty seven Oklahoma statute fifteen oh three Tennessee code fifty five five two oh three three oh one point three nine zero revised statutes of Missouri and Texas business code section one point two zero one obviously if we follow that around every state around Arkansas has this legislation finally federal legislation came in nineteen ninety two and the primary focus of this is strictly on a modified V. I. in an addition the mental state that is required for the committing this crime is knowingly that is you are aware that it has been modified it is not satisfied by recklessly the should have known it's only if you news and finally I've spoken with the the sheriff's association the police association they support this legislation helped draft this back in December with an incident that happened in Sebastian County I'll be happy to answer any questions. Mark committee heard and explain to the bill any questions. Saying none is there anyone the only two would like to speak for against the bill. Saying none of Senator Gilmore you want to close for your bill thank you members thank you Mr I'm close to make a motion to pass. Are we have a motion to pass I have a second. Any discussion. All right all those in favor say aye. All opposed. Thank you more your bill passes. Our. Senator Tucker you. Ready. Which bill are you referring to. Fourteen. Twenty. Senator Rice you. Tucker you're recognized thank you Mr chairman start with house bill twelve ninety six. This is a technical corrections bill from the code revision commission. The change in this bill is that it it changes. Places in the code that refers to people who are handicapped with more kind of modern respectful language. Yes I said I'm happy to take any questions. Part in any questions from committee. Anyone the ice was speak for against the bill. Senate questions from committee. Are you ready to close yes from closed I appreciate a good vote a move do pass. Our. We have a do pass motion. We just second. Once we have a second. Any discussion. All those of favour say aye aye All opposed. The Bill pass to occur thank you Mr chair thank you members next I'll do House Bill sixteen thirty seven. House Bill sixteen thirty seven. Recognized to present house bill sixteen thirty seven thank you Mr chair there are times in the criminal code where the mental state for an offender is that they know or should know about. Something before before they engage in certain behavior and Mr Rosenzweig actually brought this to the attention I think a couple house judiciary members represented Gazaway in Collins there needs to be some more objectivity to it If it just says the person knows or should know it could be subjective and that's that's not the best way to have that standards that need to be objective from a jury standpoint when they're determining whether somebody knows or should know something so what this bill does is it goes through every place in the code where the mental status knows or should know and it changes it to knows or reasonably should know to give it that objectivity. That's really a. Our next much of the bill. Anyone any questions from committee. Senator Rapert you're recognized thank you There's a motion prosecutors. Come up on this. Mr by man. I am by you want to go ahead and go the other side. At a hearing. Senator Rice as a question. Senator Rapert you're recognized for a question. Thank you I don't know Bob scared Amendment. Matter of who knows what about which building that was I spoke to Michael the Mr Magnanime. The wanted to the type of you to get this opportunity to thank all the couple named Senate Committee. This is real money Senator Rapert you're recognized can you give me covered in here that this. Continues to have teeth in it And doesn't. Given too much room when he or she. No those are reasonably should know. Is that actually enhances. Or does it give amount now. Senator I think I'm not sure exactly which section of the bill you're looking at so if you want to point retained this section that is Page two. number eight. Our number five. Ma'am if we have our reasonably should know when in many places what I don't know what I don't have a legal mind. I will submit is saying why didn't know. Right okay I'm I think that I see where you're talking about but it the language is added it already says they know or should know and I think they should know languages what is trying to be clarified there and there are several paces when whenever our office did some research and that one of the attorneys in the office and it's not our bill but there was some language in the bill that we were working on it she pulled all the places in the code where it already says reasonably should know instead of no or should know and so we're comfortable with this bill in that that language is consistent throughout the criminal code and sometimes you get into a situation of should know what this should know main how it how do you prove somebody should know and so that reasonably should know is the standard that applies to that language so they either knew it which the knowingly part would still be in there and I think that's what you're referring to you want to make sure that remains and does it come out so is this just clarifies that should know part so a reasonable person should know I think it's going to help prosecutors as much as a defense and enhances the to end the game going down to another line on twenty eight crime committed against a woman the person knew are reasonably is a reason these that or that it should have known was pregnant right M. because the defense could argue just in my opinion that they didn't know and and we can and then come back and say well a reasonable person under those circumstances should know that the woman was pregnant thank you Mr. This computer center and an outstanding job if I could just add on that I didn't know that's really what this is solving for because if it says no or should know then the defendant and say well I didn't know so I should've known because I personally did not know and this adding that in allows a prosecutor come back and say look here the fax and you can come up with different hypotheticals but the in the law school example they teach you as well I didn't know there were drugs in my trunk all I knew is that I picked up my truck for some folks put some things in there in Tijuana they paid me ten thousand dollars and I crossed over to San Diego and they and then they got out of my truck I didn't know what was in there obviously you should know at that point and so what this is changing its is a person saying why didn't know and it says at the imac hypothetical a prosecutor could go to any jury and say obviously they reasonably should have known and and you can still move for the prosecution at that point. Part of Centerville believe question. Actually yes Sir Tucker made the point I was gonna make thank you. Or any other questions from committee. Anyone the artist which speak for against the bill. The nine Senator Clark you recalls senator. Yes Sir Mr appreciate it I'm I'm closed I appreciate a good vote I make a motion to pass all right. Thank you for motion to pass. The second. I have a second. Discussion. All those in favor say aye All opposed. The Bill pass The Mister I've got two more and they're both uniform acts I'm happy to present those at this time. One of the first one is house bill Fortino weight. Okay you were going present house for fourteen oh eight you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair this is the uniformity easement relocation Act as. Sure the members are aware an easement is when. There's a burden on one piece of property in favor of another piece of property the obvious example. A lot of cases is a utility line. Another example is if you have one lot that's next to a highway in another what that's on the other side of the first slide and the lot that's further away from the highway needs access road to their property and so they have an easement across the piece of property between their property and how to make sure that they can access the property those easements are not particular to the owners they go with the property so what this is what law says is that the property that's burdened the property with the easement on it can route right now the law says that the an easement can only be moved with the mutual agreement of both parties and this says that the burden to property could move the easement without the agreement but only in certain circumstances for one thing with just the stars all utility easements are exempted so those scenarios don't apply here it's just a second example I gave were you might have an access road let's say hypothetically that the access road cuts right in in the middle of your property. And then you want to build a house on your property we can't do that because the easement runs right through it and so on said you just move the easement to the edge of the property you can do that without the consent of the other person but but only in certain circumstances first well you have to go to court yet you have to go to court to do it and a judge has to agree and you're going to be totally responsible for paying and you have to provide notice to the other person and you can still only do it if it doesn't impairs impose a burden on the person who holds the easement if it doesn't impair the purpose for which the easement was created if it doesn't impair the safety of anyone using the easement so long as it doesn't reduce the value of the easement holders property or in anyway reduce the usefulness of the easement so another words the only way you can make this happen is if you go to court and prove Hey I'm going to I'm going to move this easement for the benefit of my property but it's not gonna have any effect on the easement holder at all and in so many words that's what it does and again this is a uniform law so it's been developed and and and past in many other states although I don't know what the exact number is with that I'd be happy to take any questions. Our tell me you're recognized legibility Senator Rice. Senator Tucker one of your colleagues in your profession in the house voted against this bill it just non vote will vote against it could you give me what the other side's explanation would be to be against this. Why don't. Know who you're referring to and I have not personally heard any opposition to the bill I can speculate over a little well and my best guess would be. Because I had my own questions you know the Bar Association is the one who brought this in and asks me carried in the Senate and I have my own questions that I wanted to have answered before I was comfortable running it and it basically was just that the the easement holder I want to make sure they're treated fairly and that they're not adversely affected by the easement being moved. But given everything that's in the law the first of all you have to give notice and talk to them first and then you go to court only if they don't agree and it basically and then you have to pay all the expenses but you have to prove to a court that really the if you move the easement it's not gonna affect the easement holder in any material way it got me to the point where I was comfortable I was comfortable carrying I think it's a good a good law for people who have easements over their lands but whatever you may be referring to admit may not I've got to that comfort levels that you're you're comfortable enough that the notification process it is firm they can you say we tried to notify by you or whatever would what with the notification the would be certified. Letter or how. Well there has to be again you have to go to court. And we're going to start the process I okay I'm referred somebody out having to go through a lot of. The fifth you know if there were day notified. In. That's all right I don't know enough about it to be against it the. But it just was something other yep so Act. also. Respect their. Yes please as under you yeah yeah so the way that this is structured is. It doesn't really regulate the conduct of the parties before litigation I think as a practical matter and a you I don't think you really can but as a practical matter everybody's going to try to avoid litigation if possible I don't think anyone is going to start with litigation. It does govern the way that works once litigation starts and in that scenario the person who wants to move the easement they have to serve a summons on the person who holds the easement so they're gonna get a notice their efficient witcher's that is what I need now thank you. Any other questions from committee. You're not where you're not aware of who it was that voted against the bill and and how I should look Mister chair but I I did and I don't know who it is okay any other questions from committee members. Are saying none is anyone the always wish to speak for against the bill. Degree reticle yes Sir I'm close appreciative of a good vote now I move to pass we have a motion do pass. We have a second. All in favor. Hi. All opposed. The Bill pass thank you Mr thank you members last one this is house bill fourteen oh nine it's also a uniform act. This one is for community property disposition at death and it has to do with the property of married couples of taking away during courses of their marriage most states in the United States are community property so the income that any spouse earns to the course of the marriage is community property for the mayor marriage but there are nine states in two U. S. territories that aren't and so what this law says is if you live in here in Arkansas which is a community property state and then you moved to a non community property state the property that you accumulated while you're married here in Arkansas state's community property even when you go to the non community property state and just kind of clarifies how that property will be disposed of at your death and this this helps create clarity in the law reduces litigation less work for law and involvement for lawyers but it's more necessary than ever and as as mobile as people are over the course of their marriage they might live in a number of states and this just helps clarify that if you live if you're properties humility in a community property state while you're married that it stays that way even when you move to a non committee property state that's that's really it. Our gentleman you're you for next question bill on any questions. Anyone in the audience to which speak for against the bill. Seeing none to Tucker you want to close for the bill yes Sir I'm close I appreciate a good vote number of do pass. The motion to pass the second. Discussion on the bill. All those favor say aye. All opposed. The Bill pass. Anyone else here that wish to Senate bill. Sir Clark. The service is Senate bill SB two thirty seven this B. two thirty seven I'd like to with your permission help of hot spring county sheriff Scott picked on or come to the table to present this bill or if you would recognize so for the record Alan Clarke Senate district seven. Senator Senator Clark could you mind restating which bill your running SP two thirty seven S. B. two thirty seven sorry about that. You're recognized as it is B. two thirty sevenths okay with your permission last husband county sheriff Scott Finkbeiner to speak. Mark if you will identify yourself for the record. Scott thank madam sheriff hot spring county. Senator Clark you're recognized to present HB thirty seven to thirty seven thank you Mr. Are contracted Senator Clark last year about some of the issues with crime going on in our community we have high theft rates in our county we have a. President or county every entry program to allow narcotics so theft is obviously a side effect of that ATVs have been stolen at a much higher rate in our county and the I think it's across the state as well trailers boats things of that nature currently if you steal and are altering the then number on automobile or a firearm is a felony own a TV you have to catch them in the act of defacing the vin number which is almost impossible we would just like to put some of these more expensive items in the code is a Class D. felony so that we catch people who have altered VIN numbers the faced on change them it becomes a felony not just a misdemeanor. Thank you Mr chair we've had a lot of conversations recently about enhancing penalties and no talk about the fact that we have not limit number prison beds and so it's not just a matter of well these people should be in prison for longer it's also well this person should be in prison more than this other person and so I guess I'm just asking. If it is that what you believe about the perpetrators of this crime not only should they be in prison sent to ABC but we should have them in prison more than we have someone else who's done some other crime. Really the currently they're not getting much of anything there's no felony charge with the price of ITV's I'm I'm sure many of you know if you have any that they have gone up significantly Two years ago you could purchase one for thirty five hundred dollars now many of them are fifteen thousand twenty thousand dollars that is a significant impact to our citizens when they lose one I myself am a victim of an ATV theft that's the reason I'm sitting here today I had no desire to go into law enforcement a run for elected office my TV was stolen During the process we have found chop shops as was mentioned earlier people cutting these things up and it is an industry. these people make a lot of money off of these ATVs and we recently got I. individual leaving a known criminal neighborhood just a few weeks ago driving an ATV we go to run the vin number they had wailed it across the top of the vin numbers. Intentionally just to keep us from being able to run them. And when you can't run then that's not a felony. Currently so they basically got away with the theft of an ATV or certainly the possession of a stolen ATV we have no way to. No Way to penalize many significant way and yes Sir Tucker I'm a stickler on that as you are as you know and of. have lost to issue base of the S. ATVs over the years one chained in a storage building it's an industry in our area anyway it's organized crime and yes I think that the stricter penalty there are some things that I would let people out before I would let him out for this one because it's just allowing them to still and it's also on people who know that stolen to possess it. We are talking about eighty these events it also includes farming equipment tractors trailers things of that nature that are also pretty significantly there expensive so it's for that also okay any other questions from senator. We we just passed a bill out on chop shops to make the classy felony maybe before you were in in here senator Clark but. This is kind of more of the to use an analogy from drug trafficking more like a drug dealer. then you get a Class C. felony is that does that give you any comfort. Well as long as we when we come in contact with people with the stolen items the other than and then an automobile or a firearm you know that those are felonies in the state of Arkansas to possess them want to face the vans. Our only goal here is to try to get board chief with people who are facing these things are changing altering the vin numbers on these more expensive items like tractor trailers ITV's that's all our our only go thank you yeah. We got any other questions from committee. Anyone anyone. I would like to speak for against the bill. Saying Senator Clark you want close we will. Of thank you Mr chair colleagues the the trafficking in ATVs and former Quitman tractor trailers both is well known of in rural areas and. The and the ability to buy these things and possess them no one but there's a good chance or stolen or I can't think of a single good reason to deface a serial number other than that stolen we need to be doing something about don't think this is we're best for another increase for it to to cause alarm and I believe it would actually help law enforcement and I would appreciate a good vote can I make a motion to pass. Okay we have we have a motion to pass in the second. Any discussion. All those in favor say aye in a post. Senator Clark Senate bill two thirty seven passes. You have another bill yes as P. two thirty eight. Senate bill two thirty eight and again I want to act fast for sure providers to assist me. Yes. As the two thirty eight is also one that we have encountered numerous times in our county I know that or prosecutor is here for our district we have discussed these problems in the past as well when you have a high crime rate with narcotics people get out and most of the time they enter your home your out building your vehicle it's for a bad intent. sometimes it's not but you have to prove the intent currently to commit a felony if you walk into your living room and you and your child is left the back door unlocked and somebody walks in and they're set and watching your television in the State of Arkansas that's not a felony. You have to prove under breaking or entering you have to prove they had an intent to commit a felony before you can charge them with one now if I have an arm load of items like they were going to steal that's a felony this bill would create aggravated criminal trespass which is it's it's pretty narrow it's only and structures like your home your vehicle or all right shop building of somebody enters that. Without approval but it would make it a Class D. felony. All right gentlemen you for next elections. Senator Clark a. Centers. this is really just kind of a working questions on page three one five. CSS person purposely enters or remains on lawfully there yes my concern there is I think purposely supposed to apply to both enters and remains this is not. You have to purposely in or purposely remain. Is that. Michael yes Senator Tucker that that is correct the first time I read it maybe just me but the first time I read it. I read it is either purposely enter or unlawfully remains. To you we should the thing is as it should say AM. four. No I think almost think there should be another purposely in there before remains just to make just to ensure that it they wouldn't bother me if that unlawfully one also there. You see my point when that unlawfully is there next to the remains to me that almost takes that purposely mental state out of it just and again maybe this is my personal read and and I'm reading it wrongly but that's my concern no I don't see it but I certainly don't have a problem with the the word being added you're the attorney and I'm not so or planners and purpose or purposely remains. The this does not change the committee and anyway. Well we we omit added a bill we had a word to your bill and state agencies last week. Forty five we have a rule here you can you can actually do that so. This so I might I might just make a motion to amend the bill to add the word purposely between or and remains on page three one five. Clark all the whole so you prosecutor over here that's it Mr yeah please we could have or speak to a. Or if you come to the table. State your name and who you're with you're recognized there's a reason I recognize prosecutor. And it's not because he's prosecutor. Mr chairman names Teresa how in the prosecuting attorney for the seventh judicial district which includes senator Clark's District and US share fake batteries also the sheriff of hot spring county which has join or as part of my district as well. If I might answer part of that question on the criminal trespass the aggravated Language in there is going to track criminal trespass itself and I think under the criminal trespass it actually just says enter purposely enters or remains unlawfully so it's tracking that so if you do want to change that that's going to be what we would be looking at is the changing if it's going to track criminal trespass as the statute as written itself. Purposely isn't criminal trespass yeah I was going to pull up real quick and. Make sure. In criminal trespass just the regular language of the statute a person commits criminal trespass if he or she purposely enters or remains unlawfully upon and it goes into the vehicle premises level one way and so I think with the aggravated I think the intent probably and I'm not trying to speak for the senator for the sheriff that I would imagine that that went with an intent to track. Do you see my concern it seems to me the way that war reads and tell me if you think it's just me that one option is to purposely inner and the other option is to remain unlawfully that's correct so my concerns especially when we're creating felonies is. The reason why I think it might be different and I'm again it's it's up to Senator Clark were the result of this or not. But if if you're gonna be committing a felony that I think you ought to have to remain on lawfully on purpose and not and not have that portion B. Strickland bility. As I have said Senator Tucker it is the lesser some reason the. It should be there. Does that make me one or the other. Okay. Thank you Since you don't think it would create a problem if we added that other purposely here just within track the other exactly. What we've had in the past is if you've got someone who purposely enters a a premises or vehicles or let let's look at let's take a look at a house and purposely enters Unlawfully but then sometimes you have people who were there and we want them out and we can't get them out and so that's the point where you have the they unlawfully enter so that can be a portion of it then there are folks who may be there. Lawfully as they come into the building or into the vehicle but we want them out of that vehicle the owner wants them out of the vehicle and so that's gonna be where you've got the two two segments of that okay and so however it is the that the senator wants to move forward with that I think that makes sense okay I appreciate. So you are you good with the bill okay any other any other questions from committee. Are we have a mixture of the swags. Speak against the bill. If you will identify yourself record. General you're recognized association of criminal defense lawyers what Senator Tucker propose was improvement but not a sufficient improvement I'll point out a couple of things up. What they're trying to do is make felonies out of things that should not be felonies for instance talking back out buildings a manager in a situation where where you're on a bike ride for instance all of a sudden. Rain comes up thunderstorm coming tornado comes up and you see an open garage you go in to get out of the rain. A interpretation this would because you're purposely entering the out buildings that would be a felony even though you have no intent to commit a staff or any other from another problem with it is that essentially you could make a felony out of failure to vacate. Your remaining on lawfully in a in someone that someone doesn't want you to be there the laws done perfectly well without without failing arising things that there may be innocent explanations for or may not be intentional the I've I've always had a problem with the definition of criminal test president back remaining on lawfully that creates a sort of a loop because this is the hi this is what makes something lawful or unlawful is the statute and so It is this is unnecessary if it's a burglary requires a any offense punishable by imprisonment break here ending entering requires any staff could be a misdemeanor or or felony and what you are wanting to do what we want to do in this is Fallin Ising things without any intent to commit any associated crime. And it It is and I would ask that you vote this bill that. Senator. Tucker you're recognized. For more sufficient improvement before to say that you purposely enter or remain on lawfully with the intent to commit another crime well that's already against the law that's called breaking or entering yeah yeah right so this is just unnecessary this is something for this is a this of criminal trespass is a lesser offense for people who are somewhere that they're not supposed to be but have no other associates criminal intent the sheriff has a problem because he he doesn't want to have to prove that there's an intent to do anything else at that makes his job easier he can slap a felony on people that have it without without having to investigate they just happened to be there for some for some reason. All right even though it may be for self protection in her personally enters I mean I you purposely enter the state capitol. Practice okay so from your standpoint the the laws it since they already covers between. The artillery making entering yes on the one hand the trespass on that as that is correct okay thank you. Are any other questions from committee members. Yes Mister chair May I have of. Prosecutor hell respond. Yes yes. Mister chair and and and following up with the senator Tuckers follow up with that we are seeing a. I'm. And the area that is not covered by the law had this twice in our county in the last couple of years I'll give an example we had a family who was home of the mother was in the kitchen cooking supper a husband was in the back part of the House fourteen year old son was at the kitchen table doing homework a man came into their home locked the door behind him and was out of his mind on drugs came through the kitchen came into the house scare them to death they were able to. Get him out of the house and get him out the child was calling nine one one they got the man out of the house and as law enforcement got there he had actually gone into another vehicle down the road and so in that particular case you look at residential burglary then you look at a criminal trespass and criminal trespass just not does not seem to be sufficient for a client and that's going to be you know I think that it's going to be a Class C. misdemeanor. Or something like that for someone who has invaded a home even though you can't prove you may or may not be able to prove some kind of intent that would cause incarceration with that the second instance that we had a we had a young lady who was at home and within our city limits was on the couch watching of TV watching a TV show a gentleman or a guy comes into the house just comes in again. Intoxicated high out of his mind just saying aye I've got to have something to drink I've got to have something to drink that was one of those situations where you've got a teenage girl at home and someone just comes into her house so we have the situations that seem to be above the level of criminal trespass but yet you have the issue of not being able to prove that after a sexual assault or something along those lines to hit a residential burglary that's part of what we're seeing in an an an issue that we're we're looking I think that the sheriff in the Senate or we're looking at trying to address also on a situation like that as far as the the situation given by Mr Rosenzweig of someone being caught in the rain into an outbuilding that is certainly not anything that anyone would look at as a serious legal offense or crime and also the argument with the criminal trespass is being used as a hold over for an unlawful detainer or What was the yeah the failure to vacate that has actually already been adjudicated and and and dealt with through the failure to vacate statute we don't with last year and or a couple years ago and criminal trespass does not apply in that particular situation. Okay. Senator Tucker you're recognized for a question so from your standpoint. And I know it. We have a bad habit down here of of passing laws based on anecdotal examples and I'm about to ask you an unfair question which is to draw a large conclusion based on the two anecdotes you just gave. But that is the but the question is is that blank space you see in along with people who are are kind of. Intoxicated or high on drugs. The two examples that I gave you we did add one is still pending legislator or pending and. As still in the courts still going still pending the other one has been adjudicated and in both of those instances we had someone who was was high right if if when the. Enter those homes that actually hurt somebody then they would be charged with other crimes which are all absolutely absolutely. So essentially the proposal here is. They go on someone's home because they have a drug or alcohol problem they haven't heard anyone. The proposal here's Mr put those people in prison well I don't know that the proposal would be to put someone in prison I think it would be to make them accountable for their actions while they were in that particular state now is whether or not they go to prison may be their choice but on a situation on a nonviolent felony and something along those lines then it's not going to be an automatic prison sentence but it is an accountability for that person as they go into someone else's home and there don't mind thank you. Yes your. I'd also like to add we had a another instance of this three weeks ago or a stay at home mother was there has been a firefighter. Bedroom's sliding glass door was open we were they are very very quickly just so happen to be right down the road. The individual. We don't know if he was high on drugs or not but he had had entered it was in her bathroom through her bedroom and her children are the ones I believe that sound Hillman she hollered as she went to a this leads into people getting shot somebody enters your home we need to make it a serious offense to enter someone's home on lawfully. Because somebody could lose their life over the is currently with the castle doctrine and stand your ground legislation which I am in favor of. But these people are endangering their lives as well as the homeowner having to live with shooting somebody that enters our home so we decided to leave it needs to be a hires stay up for somebody that inner somebody's home or their vehicle unlawfully. For any other questions from committee. No one else in the audience who wish to speak for against the bill. Senator Clark you will close the will thank you Mr. The a believe that if you find someone in your home that doesn't belong there you're going to think that it's a Class D. felony rather than a misdemeanor the and this is becoming more more of a problem that's what's been brought to us as is the will of the changes in society today at this because it keeps happening more and more and you're hearing from law enforcement that they're having a heart problem dealing with it and also of I have great respect for Mr rose as well I guess he knows and you know and if there needed to be an amendment and I'll be glad to visit with him and prosecutors about extenuating circumstances I don't see a prosecutor prosecuting the to start with but I'm a stickler not have it'll having someone in jeopardy they shouldn't be I would say that this there's a reason this these two bills are the top of the list I've been out there for at least two months and Speaker pro. So if this needs to be amended go to House it makes it extremely difficult to get it passed at this point if we do that probably glad to visit with them and if that if we need something for extenuating circumstances I'll be glad to put it in there with that I would ask for a good vote and I make a motion of do pass. Are we have a motion. And second do pass. Indiscretion remembers. Seeing none all in favor hi All opposed. The Bill pass. Senator Clark. The Bill. I do Mr chair but waiting on the representative goes away so if there's somebody else has got a bill will let them go until he gets here. Thank you Mister thank you colleagues. Okay. Thank you will go ahead and go the other table. I understand you're just concurring out and. House member. Thank you Mr yes Senate bill two seventeen we need to concur in the house amendment that added sexual gratification to my bill. What you've heard the amendment. Any questions. I have a motion to we have a motion to adopt the amendment to seventy. The discussion I have a second. Follows favor hi All opposed. Members better doctor thank you Mr chair thank you members. She's. Okay. Senator Irvin if you want to go in state your name. Thank you senator Missy Irvin district twenty four. We are going to they just saw me an education running bills and ran down here Senate bill M. five nineteen. As is. To create a vulnerable and persons act. And and. The vulnerable person protection act it's patterns after or the Arkansas and abuse of adults act which is codified state language and that's what this bill does is it expands the protection at that that act has in statute to cover two groups of vulnerable all Kansans the first would be any person over the age of sixty nine and then the second would be any person in an inpatient medical treatment or rehabilitation facility receiving twenty four hour care and these two groups may not be covered by the definitions in the Arkansas and abuse of adults act but they're no less vulnerable groups of people so at an a and and it's of the AG's office an office of Medicaid fraud that that we worked with and and they're here to testify for the bill and these proposed changes cannot be made in the abuse of adults Act because some of the targeted patients are not technically adults so in addition to add these definitions are then incorporated into other laws that are not appropriate to all of the persons identified as vulnerable so and I'll turn it over to I worked with the AG's office attorney general's office and so Mister Weatherford is here and can speak more clearly to some of the things that they have seen through through their work and which has precipitated the this bill to be brought Fort. I'm the director of the sorry. but Lloyd Wofford I'm deputy Attorney General director the Medicaid fraud control unit been in that position since two thousand sixteen about two thousand and fifteen the law change that allow the Medicaid fraud control unit in fact require the Medicaid fraud control unit to expand its investigative authority to investigate abuse neglect and exploitation in all Medicaid facilities prior to that from nineteen seventy nine to two thousand and fifteen jurisdiction had been limited to investigating long term care cases in you and we use the adult statute that dole protection statute to do that so beginning and end up two thousand sixty we begin to investigate cases of abuse and all types of Medicaid facilities in two thousand twenty the R. investigative authority and I requirements under a federal law and grant expanded our investigative authority further to require us to investigate abuse neglect and exploitation of Medicaid recipients in any setting which would include home settings so we begin to investigate these things at that time and we have investigated literally hundreds of cases since then. What we found is that we do not have we have a special a statute that work very effectively and has worked very effectively from nineteen seventy nine to the present with regard to long term care settings but we do not have a similar statute that protects people and other types of inpatient settings so people can literally move from a long term care facility to a psychiatric facility and one they're protected under under Arkansas law and when they're not so what we've done is we've taken the basic protections that are there in the adult abuse statute we've and we've expanded those two to protect people who are in any inpatient long term care impatience healthcare facility where they depend on other people for their complete support for their food for for the every their care and everything else so if those people are exploited they would be protected of this act in addition to that we have to try to address some of what we've seen in the community we've created and that a new vulnerable persons definition for people who are sixty over the age of sixty nine and that's based on frankly we had we had a lot of discussions with a lot of different groups you know some groups wanted that number to be as low as fifty five some groups wanted to be as high as eighty five. Everybody we talked to agreed that at some point senior are cancers are more vulnerable to the type of fraud scams and things that we have to deal with every day we up alternately decided that seventy would be the age where we would we would Seek special protections and make them definitional vulnerable under this statute. Do you have questions for me. It is clarified I thought I heard you say it first time older than sixty nine and then you said seven zero this is sixty nine years of age are over so this does cover sixteen that. Page four. Line ten. Eleven. Read I'm asking about fixed it sixty nine on November. Senator Gilmore says he'll take care of me. You're correct Sir thank you this will clarify the. Or any other questions from committee. Anyone from the artists which speak for against the bill. Seeing none center when you close for you will. Sorry I'm I'm closed yes thank you all right appreciate a good vote. Okay we have a motion to pass I have a second. In discussion. All those in favor say aye. All opposed. Regulations Centerville your bill pass thank. Thank you members of the committee. Anyone else have a. A few minutes a representative five together for years supposedly in a few minutes. Just. Cystic. Okay. Okay. We're going to get we're going to take just a five minute recess will represent to fight gets here. Okay we're we're going to we're going to go back again and the first bill we're going here senator boxer representative five. House Bill. Sixteen ninety five. Senator five you are recognized yourself for the record thank you Mr chair Charlene Fite state representative district twenty four. Mr chairman this is a claim that bill this is tied to the legislation that I sponsored in twenty seventeen since then the addition of space force has made it a priority for the military to update all the language in the code they are steering away from listing services so it's now accomplished by siding armed forces rather than listing each individual service this is per title ten and title thirty two of the U. S. Code so all it does is amend the definition of active duty service member in this case as it was used in the child maltreatment act. And I'm open for questions okay. Members of our next place to the bill or any questions. C. ninety one the honest to speak for against the bill. All right center for a representative Fite you're recognized closed we'll I'm close to the bill is just a cleaning up the language this is being done all across the United States and in this case we're are getting this end shape in Arkansas create a good vote. All right we have a motion do pass in the second. He's question. All those in favor say aye. All opposed. Graduations represent five the Bill pass that's easy step got nothing here thank you. Yes. You senator Clark right now. Senator Clark you're recognized. Mr unless the house sponsor representative guys would come to the table hello this bill. S. B. five sixty one. SP five sixty one you're you're recognized. Thank you Mr. Alan Clark. State Senate district seven. Senator Clark you're recognized thank you. The representative goes one. Thank you Mr chairman representative Jimmy Gazaway district thirty one. Members of bill you have before you is Senate bill five sixty one and this concerns. The use of child support payments by physical custodian or pay E.. specifically what this would allow for is the court on its own motion. Four bought a motion of a. Okay or parent upon a showing of good cause so I wanna make that very clear. Only upon a showing of good cause based on certain evidence which may include. That the minor child's needs are not being met. That the court could order the physical custodian pay E. or other person who receives child support is owed child support to provide the court. With an accounting of how all those child support expenses it been used to demonstrate that they have in fact been used for the benefit of the minor child. And I would point out a couple of things about this Arkansas would certainly not be the first state to do this at least ten other states allow for an accounting of child support. In the Supreme Court An administrative order number ten which is the administrative order that. Concerns child support in which sets the rules for child support in Arkansas says that quote these guidelines of the company worksheet assume that the parent to whom support is owed is spending his or her calculated share directly on the child. So if there is evidence that this assumption is false then the child support order is no longer valid in the court is obligated to intervene as of now they don't that doesn't happen and so allowing for an accounting again upon a showing of good cause and evidence that the child's needs are not being met I think is a common sense state the measure that introduces some some much needed transparency into this process it's called child support after all. And it should be used for the benefit of the child not on lottery tickets in the casino in cigarettes and alcohol it should be used to support the child I think that's a once again a much needed opportunity for transparency here that other states have adopted it would make sense for Arkansas to adopt and so. That's what the bill does and I'm happy to answer any questions our committee her next question bill of. Senator flowers you're recognized. This is quite concerning. You say Shall support should be used directly. For the benefit of the child. So. When that custodial parent who's receiving the child support. Takes the child. To school or to church or to other social events. Burning gas. In the car. Our. Buying groceries at the grocery store. For feeding the child. R. for. Light water and gas in the house. That helps to provide the shelter. Even the house payment of the rent payment. Those kinds of things. Benefit the child to would you agree. yes I absolutely agree with that thank you. So in this accounting that call for here. I'm not certain that you could really. Put together an accurate accounting. Without having a very heavy burden on that custodial parent. Is that custodial parent supposed to. Take notes. Give a mileage log. Pictures of how much the kid is eaten at dinner or breakfast or lunch. How much gas is contributed to taking the child to a certain place where the child needs to go. This is ludicrous to me. Would you agree I would absolutely not agree. Last question. If you say that. You you're so concerned about. That child support is being. Use for the needs of the trial. And the suggestion. Suggestion has been made. That the child has. not have the benefit of these payments. It sounds like you're suggesting that the child has been neglected. So why not filed a dependency neglect case. Well I think there are a lot of issues to consider their you've raised what I think or some good points one I would say this goes back to some of your a previous remarks and questions that. that the current definition of child support is construed very broadly is in terms of what the child support is used to support the child so house payments. Obviously the child needs a roof over to add so if if the custodial parent uses the money to pay house payment or rent payments certainly that's for the benefit of the child. If The custodial parent uses the money to pay for a car payment the child needs transportation to and from school and from other activities obviously that's for the benefit of the child. if the custodial parent uses it for any number of things and many of which you mention it's it's been interpreted very broadly to mean that that those expenses would be for the benefit of the child what we're trying to get out here and you hit on it in your question is cases where the minor child's needs are not being met despite the fact that the custodial parent is receiving child support and. You know once again your child support child support should be used for the very things that you describe it should be used to provide a roof over the child said transportation for the child food for the child clothing for the child to me make sure that the child's needs are met. not for lottery tickets casino gambling cigarettes alcohol while the chip while the minor child's needs go unmet and if it appears that there's evidence that that's occurring I think you know and in response to your question I think it's wholly appropriate that the court could order the custodial parent in that situation to provide an accounting as to how it's being used now it doesn't specify that has to be you know down to the penny as to how each of payment has been used but generally some description about how these payments are used you know the court would have the discretion to order that and ask the non custodial or the custodial parent to comply as the court's office so that that's one I think in response to your earlier remarks and questions and then secondly US why not file a dependency neglect case well dependency neglect cases as as you know we're brought by the state it's up to the state as to whether or not to bring those as department Human Services and dependency neglect actions and so that you know that I don't know that that would necessarily be the appropriate forum but but certainly I think this is a measure that would provide more transparency as to how payments are being used and ensure that children. Hopefully are being supported as as they should be by these child support payments. Thank you Mr. And resented guess what you do not have actually spoken about this bill and so we we sort of talk through some of this before but my my concern with that is it might be just a little bit subjective on. What is what is considered in the best needs of the child and obviously the court has latitude to. Determine that based on my reading of the bill but. There could be some things that you or I would deem appropriate for a child that someone else would not obviously there's laws we have to protect children so there's no question as to some of these things but what would be your response to. Some of that the being subjective. Well the entire family law. The entire family law code is subjective I mean we referred to in family law the best interest of the child what does that mean. At the end of those those types of considerations are purely subjective. How are under open to interpretation but. You know in this context once again we're talking about in cases where it appears the child's needs are not being met and that's going to be up to the court like all of these other standards the court has to make decisions about whether when a person acts in the best interest of the child when a person's actions may not be in the best interest of the child court has to make determinations on many of these kind of amorphous standards that we put into the law. And that this is going to be no different in this context the court's going to have to evaluate it. in light of what evidences before a man again you can't just **** nilly file one of these motions it has to be based on evidence that the it has to be based upon a showing of good cause including evidence that the minor child's needs are being are not being met. And you know now whether or not that standards met once again as up to a judge but so many things that we do in the family law system and another is a law are subject to the internet to a judge's role to mentor petition. The more questions Senator you will. Senator flowers you're recognized. Representative Gazaway House. When we make that comment our response about. These are just not brought **** nilly is for the court. A lot of things are brought **** nilly before the court. It's the upon the court. Determine. Whether it's **** nilly are not. And To to determine whether you got a. A proper motion a lot of people my experience has been in family courts. Do a lot of **** nilly stuff and it does not help. And serve the best interest of the child. I think this is vindictive I think at the time that the court sets child support and upon any motion. For. Increasing or decreasing child support or terminating child support or changing the custody of a child. This kind of issue might be considered but just to allow it in the law for something like this to be brought before court I think is a. Wait for the court's time. I think it allows the parties to to wreck havoc in a child's life. At I just don't understand how in the world when you talk about lottery tickets and A casino of. Has that going to be verified I mean are we taking pictures and casinos and that you're going to determine which calendar with from the child support payment into the slot machine. So. I just can't see this. This there are many other ways. To deal with the issue. Of whether the X. the child support payments. That are being paid. Are being properly used. And whether the child is being neglected but overall what's in the best interest of the child. Thank you I just if if you need to if I need to ask a question would you agree. Well I would not agree but I would say that. I have a lot of respect for you senator flowers I have a lot of respect for your perspective on this I'd I do just simply disagree and it's not nothing personal of course I think that there needs to be more transparency in this area I think that if it appears that a once again a minor child's needs are being neglected just like we do in many other areas a law. If there has been a proper showing of good cause and and I think the we had we needed to build an objective standards here before you just allow this to occur in which we've written into the bill by showing of good cause and evidence that the minor child's needs are being neglected. I think it's wholly appropriate I think other states have done it we certainly would be the first and you know once again I I just think that it brings more transparency to the system and hopefully will help. help people who might otherwise be inclined to take their money and take it to the casino and buy cigarettes and alcohol with it to actually use it for their children knowing that it's possible that they could be held to account. I think that's important an important measure so. Okay. This is a follow up how could I help you how is that not. Able to be done under motion to modify the support payment our change of custody. How it. I mean we have things under the law now that can be brought. Of it into the court that addresses of what's happening with child support payments and whether the child has been. cared for. Do we not. So yes I think in in terms of the case for modification of custody. Sometimes those issues are brought up that the child's needs haven't been met the and that the opposing paired is not Is not using their child support payments to support their child and other work in other words that the child is not is being neglected certainly those are allegations to get made and in custody modification cases but it shouldn't take. I modification of custody cases. A suit to be brought to change custody in order to get you know some accounting or transparency that people are doing the right thing by their children and and using these payments appropriately at I don't think you have to bring a modification of custody case in order to get that kind of. You get that kind of transparency so yes I agree it can be brought up in those other instances but. I think this would be again appropriate way to handle it. Well. So it if an account is made. I mean what happens after in a county in is filed in the court reviews it. And Sadie a couple of dollars are spent here or there are ten dollars on faxing or apps So what. What's the court will to do. Under this bill. Well I think the court could. I will say. Well the bill doesn't specify what the court must do but it's like any other case of whether it be contempt or other powers their inherent with the court the court could admonish the parent that they should begin using the stop using the child support payments for inappropriate things and start using those payments to actually support their child you know it this could be brought in conjunction with a modification of custody case the court could. Now you know use its inherent powers of contempt or any other means it has to you know try to bring some accountability to this process which is the whole purpose of this bill. Well that's already done. When the court considers. Who has because who should have custody and. Who should pay supporter is public support should be paid all these questions already answered. And if they need to have redress that's done under the modification motion. Our. A motion to decrease. Our change the child support payments. But. I I don't I don't understand the whole purpose of this act except to antagonize the the parent does get in support. Erec havoc between the. The family unit the child hello aired a cared for or looked upon by the teams parent. In the one that's not paying I mean you've got to consider other elements besides bring in these type of bills I think. That really affected families and children. In this this is just uncalled for in my opinion I respect you too representative gather as a prosecutor. I appreciate that thank you any other questions any other questions from committee members. Anyone in the office to which speak for against the bill. Senator Clark your you. Welcome to close for the bill. Thank you Mr thank you colleagues. Of the bill of. The I think it's very important of the lawn the thirty four. This is the court may order it's not shall this is simply a still to protect children of. You don't have to want to change custody you don't have to want to reduce child support you can just have a concern that the money is not being spent the way that it should of we are laws for the B. for murder or for this donors are not about the vast majority of people there about the exceptions and where you have that exception court ought to be able on its own to do this or the payor ought to be able to do this in the court could decide of whether it ought to be done or not and the court can decide whether the the court being abused or not I don't always agree with her family courts but I don't think they Act **** nilly and if they are we need the that's a whole different issue that we need to take up but I think this is an important bill. to help protect children and make sure that their needs are being met and I would appreciate a good vote and make a motion to pass. Sir Clark. Is closed for the bill. Discussion. Motion to pass. The second. Motion to pass a second. Any discussion. All. Senator flowers you're recognized. At. Members of I really think this is not well thought out. A I think this only Sir would serve to of calls a lot of uh. Friction. Probably that exist already with some between some parents. But the idea. The one paying in support. He is challenging. How that custodial parent is spending the money. To meet the needs of the child. That's something that just would. To me. Make a person feel harassed. And that's unfortunate that we would have those kinds a situation it's already sometimes a great burden for that custodial parent. That has the child the bulk of the time. They wake up with the child. They put the child to bed at night. And make sure the child eats goes the school. Bay's themselves of all kinds of things does chores that at custodial parent. More often than not is the one that has the greatest workload. In terms of being a parent. And They shouldn't be persecuted. For. Some monies that are being paid rightfully. Being paid to help support the child. But there are other things that we have in the law already. That would address any kind of allegation. That the child's needs not being met is that paying parent thinks they can do better. Then let them file a motion for custody. When asked for support from that the parent. Let them do that. This is not needed and I'd ask that you consider that vote no. Thank you Mr thank. Are we have a motion the second do pass. Education. All those in favor of the. Opposed. Of the bill fails. Thank you Mr chair thank you members of the committee. SP five sixty two Mr. All right. Senator Clark you're recognized to present five fifty two. Thank you to S. the house sponsor representative Gazaway. President. Thank you Mr thank you Mr chairman. Colleagues bills very simple it just simply adds the word will fully before. Refuses refuses to pay refuses to engage in work refuses seek work activities. Refuses or failure to obey previous order this is the current standard in the law already in order to be in contempt you have your actions have to be willful so you know if you didn't engage in work because you were sick if you didn't engage in work because you're disabled if you didn't engage. You know if you didn't pay your child support because you simply weren't able. or because you were in poverty at a distant have the means to do it then you shouldn't go to jail for it now if you are certainly able to work if you didn't have any disability if you. You know didn't have any good reason and your actions were in fact will full then the court can put you in jail it just simply says that in order to put up thanks person in jail for not paying child support their actions have to be willful. Once again not based on poverty or some ability to pay based on disability or something of that nature so I think this is in line with basically what the existing law is it just clarifies things a bit so it's all the bill does happy to answer any questions. We are a committee any questions. Six four you're recognized. It's a. Again I I don't see a need for this of bill the court already considers the circumstances of that none pain parent or. That's Cited for contempt. And all those reasons that you gave for an individual not having the capacity to work the court considers all these things now. You know I just have to say I think we need to be careful about what we are putting things in the Arkansas code a one word change all this kind of stuff it what purpose. What what is really being accomplished here other than. The call them some extra work for somebody a. More. The to be bought did you have a change in the book credit. I don't understand this. I I just don't. And I don't think it's necessary. I have you have you seen any cases. Where the court. Is seeking to put somebody in jail that disabled. Incapacitated. Some other kind of way. even on social security poverty all those kinds of things are to be considered by the court. Even if they are on this is us they can only get so much I mean I don't understand is what cases can you sight if any. That causes you to want to put this work in the Arkansas code. Thank you for the question I think the point is is we want to remind judges to consider these cases that very clearly the standard that they have to me is willful. Non compliance not just simply non compliance and as you know. There I don't know how many circuit judges there are around the state but hundreds probably well over a hundred I'm sure and each of them interpret things differently and you know House house some judges interpret. Willful non compared noncompliance Alan other judge interprets noncompliance this is just a good reminder and clarification of the law that the standard that they should be using when they judges these cases and consider putting someone in jail is whether or not their actions were willful and I don't think it's wrong or inappropriate anyway to add more clarification to the law to serve as a reminder to the judges are hearing these cases as to what standard to do as they should be using when they're making these decisions I think it's consistent with the existing law once again I think it's wholly appropriate. What can you explain how it if it under the law now. It's all about capacity and so up if the obligated parent who is not incapacitated refuses so how can somebody that is incapacitated. The. Well full. What meet your incapacitated or not maybe it do you think may be ordered try to clarify what does in cat incapacitated means a incapacitated willfully refuses. I'm not understanding that. Seems to me like. The emphasis is on a person's capacity. To work are not. So if they. Don't have the capacity to some physical mental or emotional disability. Which can be proven. What is the point here. Sir once again I think the point is clarification. For the. Many judges around the state who regularly here these. once again that it's we're not focusing on the definition of incapacitated although I think you bring up a good point that my could use further clarification. if the obligated parent who is not in capacitate it will fully refuses or willfully refuses to engage in work or willfully refuses to seek work activities or by the court or in the next paragraph if the obligated parent to being whenever court orders and I'll get appear to be incarcerated for once again willful failure to obey a previous order which is the standard that the court should be using and many of them likely are but as a reminder once again for further for further clarification when they hear these cases to make it very plain what the standard is that they should be using before they incarcerated parent which is willful refusal and willful failure and that's all the bill does that just don't think this is complicated is we're trying to make it out to be but I appreciate the question. Well have we had appeals court not been dispositive the our our Arkansas Supreme Court or the court of appeals not had this issue come up in clearly stated what does it mean to be incapacitated. And unable to pay your child support. Before you go to jail. There there have been a multitude of cases on that issue taken up over decades some of which people would say were rightfully decided and some people would say we're not and not I don't not familiar with the most recent cases but you know once again I had I just think this is pretty common sense and pretty. Pretty simple. Any other questions from committee. If close for you bill correct since I have not of but I'll be glad to Mr. The this is a word that should have always been there. And that's what we make correction sometimes is it what should have been there if that's the way the courts are deciding that it's obvious to work should have been there was not the way the courts are deciding that it's needed either way it should be there and you should be put in jail if it's not willful if for some reason you just can't that it's debtors prison and that goes with our position on that goes way back in this country so of I think it's obvious I would appreciate a good vote and I make a motion to pass we have a motion to pass. The second. Instruction. All of the favor say aye hi. Opposed no. Motion passes Central. Roll call. Senator Clark. Senator Clark I. Senator Gilmore Senator Gilmore aye. Senator Hester Senator Hester I search a Mickey Mickey hi Senator Rice Senator Rice aye Senator Tucker. Senator Tucker. Senator flowers no no Senator flowers no. Your vote yes Sir to Stubblefield as a center court. You're recognized center directors representatives were. Thank you Mr chairman. Committee this bill concerns the guidelines that currently govern the family support chart related to child support in Arkansas. once again a very simple bill that simply says the committee. Which is appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court concerning the family support charter child support in Arkansas shall revise the family support chart to provide numeric guidelines for support related to parenting time schedules that include more than one hundred and forty one overnight stays with the pay or parent. Or the equivalent of more than one hundred forty one overnight stays with the pay or parent per year. With this revision taking effect on or before January one twenty twenty four. And the point of all of that goes back to there was a consultant that was basically. Of did work for the it was commissioned that did work with regard to this issue that provide a report that was very clear. That. I'm sorry hang on one second. It was very clear that the the court should make an account or account for parenting time in the family support chart and that the consultants report led off with the judgments for shared parenting time or important. before. Hang on to second before going into twenty pages. I'm sorry I'm I'm reading from a. Talking points of is given the point is it very much the consultant's report. Very much recommended to the committee that they account for parenting time and specifically more than a hundred forty one days per year the Committee did not do that and the result is is that you have parents to have more than a hundred forty one nights per year with their child who are kind of being given any credit for the extra time that they're spending with their child in terms of their child support when that child is with them the entire time. And so once again these are just things that it doesn't mandate how the court should. A make the chart it doesn't mandate ultimately what conclusions they should come to it just says that they should account for. More than a hundred forty one nights per year when they make their. A new merit guidelines. And the point there is is that we want some fairness and we need these objective guidelines I think to reduce the opportunity for litigation if it's set out very clearly and in the guidelines we how parenting time will be taken into account for purposes of adjusting child support then you're not gonna have a lot to get litigation over the issue if that's not made clear then you're gonna have more people bring in litigation to try to determine how much credit they should be given for the extra time that they spend with their child in part of this goes back to the joint custody bill that we passed last session. Which created a presumption in favour of joint custody and the point is if parents do have joint custody then there should be some consideration given as to what their child support should be given the extra time they may be spending with their child under joint custody arrangement this just simply says it's more than a hundred forty one night's. Per year that the court will take that into account. In the chart for purposes of child support once again doesn't tell and how what when and how just that they'll have to take into account once again which I think is completely common sense and appropriate so I'm happy to answer any questions. All right of center flowers of questions. So now we're trying to tell the the Supreme Court. What to do. In terms of. Judicial proceedings and. The. Their spear. It would try to tell them how to. How to run the courts. You know I'm I don't understand this at all now yes the right to remind us about those joint custody Beals. And I'm fairly certain that courts consider. The time that the child is would I the parent in setting that support when you're dealing with joint custody. So now you want to make it about the time. That appearance begins. With the child over night. before it was about how much money you make in that. One parent over the other what is it shall use to what what. What are they of the custom to live the. What should be the standard of living. And now we're trying to tell the the Supreme Court. Which has. The purview of this. How to do this. I think I'm it in this has this been Considered and approved are recommended by the judicial council. To your knowledge. So it was recommended by the consultant. The A. address this in their guidelines in the consultant's report that was commissioned by the Arkansas child support committee it's just when they made their most recent. I guess promulgated their most recent rules on it they completely ignored that and so we're saying that they should go back and factor this in and take it into account you know particularly in light of the joint custody bill that we passed that. hopefully results in more parents having. Joint custody and more time with their children it's important that fit parents will be very clear about that it's important that fit parents have time and spend spend as much time as they can with both parents and there's study after study that proves that that's in the best interest of children is that it's best for children to have to active and involved parents in their life if they're fit I wanna make that very clear because not all parents are fit we know that those parents shouldn't. But for those who are. we said last session very strongly in a in a bill that became law that there is a presumption favor joint custody and that means you're gonna have more and more parents who are sharing time. And that in that shared custody arrangement the court should take into account. For purposes of child support if one parent is spending more than a hundred and forty one nights per year with the child and the consultant recommended they do the that they should do that they didn't do that. And so we're saying. No go back and account for that like the consultant recommended to you that you should. And that's really that's really all the bill does once again doesn't tell me how to do it what the Senate at so on and so forth it just says go back and neck and. And just for this. Well maybe. The court didn't take the consultants a recommendation because the court knows better and is already got a process that takes into consideration. The joint custody arrangement between these two parents and the child or the children. Sounds like to me. You're trying to get more about the money part of it the court would consider all of that there's an affidavit of financial means they are questions that are going to be asked by the court. That's deciding and sending support of determining. What arrangement with the joint custody or not. And now he we here we are the legislature trying to tell the court to follow some consulted. That's not a judge. This is. This is really got extreme here. This this is extremely. Step in and to the courts boundaries. And you want us to follow some consulted where's this consultant. What do they do other than make money off of the state what. Wow how did they come up with this. This. So. Can I respond. Thank you. you know once again I I disagree because. The issue is with the courts as you know. When there's too much discretion you have been consistency and the purpose of this is to provide consistency. Across the state when you have parents who are who have more than a hundred forty one nights per year with their child and you know with this broad discretion that you talk about for the courts I mean that can be interpreted by one court one way or another to court completely different way and the purpose of this is to try to add a nice recommended again by the consultant and at the whole reason that we have the family support chart which I know you're very aware of the whole reason that we have that is because if you just left all of this up to it judge's discretion without a chart for them to go by you would have wildly inconsistent child support order in Jonesborough verses child support order Texarkana versus child support order in Fayetteville depending on the judge it was sitting there that day and that's why we have administrative order number ten in the child support guidelines is to provide for consistency and this is just saying that the court should provide for more consistency in these instances. And I you know I don't think it's insane I think it's highly reasonable in fact. So I just I just have to disagree I appreciate once again I have the greatest respect for you and I appreciate your perspective I just disagree. But isn't it true that the Supreme Court uses a committee. To help them come up with these charts and all the rules that they set for courts to follow and the discretion that is allowed and you talk about consistencies. Every family is not the same. Every custody arrangement is not going to be the same. It sounds. Income is not going to be the same. And that chart it's there for the judges to use but they are they don't have to. Hard it's just followed what that chart says they have to consider all of the circumstances. You do understand that do you not. Exactly Senator flowers and there is a committee do you understand that. Senate representative Gazaway shaking his head. Do and I was trying to answer If the question is furnished. There. Obviously the judges don't have to pull the chart which means that adding this to your can't hurt a whole lot of but it is expressing the will of the people there wouldn't be child custody cases except for the legislature there wouldn't be child support except for the legislature and for the the legislature to take a report that in fact was used to help determine this chart and say there's something here we think was missed and ought to be in there is entirely proper not even close to the inflammatory wardens word insane but Mr. Of a field to as Braun Vandiver to come help us present this bill and I would like with your indulgence at this point to ask him to come to the table to. Okay. If you want to come so I will miss brown when were. Thank you Mr chairman Brian Vandiver I'm attorney I've been practicing in Arkansas for over twenty years I'm also affiliated with the group Arkansas advocates for per only quality it's good to see all of you again here on this important issue and I'd like to. Address some points that have been asked by Senator flowers and and others. First off federal law requires states to implement guidelines for child support and federal law requires those guidelines to be descriptive and numeric and federal law delegates to the state legislatures the powers to how those guidelines are going to be determined so this body has in the past delegated that power to the Supreme Court to create through that committee it's created to determine those guidelines but this this body has the power to tell the Supreme Court we want you to calculate child support differently and in fact in twenty nineteen this body did exactly that because it pass Act to be acted that required the income share model. And so all of this began this bill kind of began when the income tax income share model act was passed in twenty nineteen requiring the Supreme Court committee to use that model to calculate child support what it did it adopted that new income share model an egg it hired this consultant to create this one hundred and thirty plus page report to give it some ideas from around the country how other states do it and it the Committee adopted most of that report but there was a part of that report that the committee did not read did not adopt in and what this bill addresses are the cases where you have both parents who that have over one hundred and forty one nights but they don't have equal time. Okay that gap there right now under administrative order number ten is left to the discretion of the judges there is no charge for parents in that gap where the paying parent has more than a hundred and forty one nights now if you have a hundred forty one my answer last there's a chart that addresses that pursuant to federal law. But what the committee has done is they they said we're not going to extend the chart up to equal time and cover that gap we're gonna leave it to the discretion of the judges to determine how much if any child support going to be awarded for those cases where the paying parent has over one hundred fourteen one nights but not equal time or approximately equal time okay now what that has done is that has created a different application all across the state from different judges as to how much child support is going to be awarded in those cases what we want to do through this bill this bill is intended to tell the Supreme Court committee go back and use a numeric guideline for those cases to create the chart up to. Equal time or approximately equal time the intent of that is to reduce litigation because if you extend the chart the parents know what the child support's going to be two joint custody then we're not going to be fighting over this nebulous concept of what is appropriate and what the judge is going to a war and With that I'll be happy to answer any questions. Senator flowers. Thank you for that. And so. I guess you were at the meeting where the court adopted part of the consultant's report and let this one. One item off no Sir I was not invited to be a part of that meeting okay. So. You don't know what the discussion was or why the court felt it was not necessary to take it and put. More make some numeric assessment. In this chart four hundred forty one days. I do not have first hand knowledge of that but I do know that thirty plus other states do have a numeric chart that provide for shared custody situations that we're trying to address in this bill but our Supreme Court said no right. That's correct it is okay. You think they have a little bit more information and a probably hashed out the issue a little bit more than we could probably do here in so much as we are not judges we don't know the circumstances of every party are parties that come before the court in these kinds of issues and I understand your partial. Two I guess father's right to it he said parental rights and I respect that likewise I am to. But when you say that do you want some certainty to exist when you're talking about families how can you expect and thanks certainty is going to provide what's in the best interest of the children and how families that need to. I have some flexibility. In a court sees the facts here's the facts and determines what's appropriate. How do you figure that we're better to do that then the Supreme Court. Thank you senator for the question and if that were true then there would be no charge at all the fact that a chart exist for those situations up to one forty one forty one night's. It demonstrates that not only is it appropriate to have a chart but it's actually required by federal law and therefore is appropriate and we sang required by federal law to have that chart extended up to situations that are joint custody true equal time approximately equal time and by not having that chart extend out beyond one hundred forty nine four one hundred forty one nights again creates this void of ambiguity that is just an incentive for litigation at the extending the chart would reduce that. So so so what what is this going to look like. Of the hundred and forty one overnight stay Eads. What is that numeric guidelines going to look like and what else. Canaccord consider. Before setting the support. That hundred and forty one overnight state. Thank you senator for the question this bill doesn't tell the committee how to set that numeric guideline it just says that there has to be a numeric guidelines a chart like there is four situations where the paying parent has less than one hundred forty one nights certainly a court can deviate from Matt as it can in any case based upon other factors and other evidence I'm in this bill does not take away the court's power to deviate in those situations. And so if if two parents that are fighting over child support and probably custody to. this chart in place that that under this bill would set forth this numeric guidelines a hundred forty one overnight stays and the parents of coming in and they they say what we can agree that no the father pay X. amount of dollars in more. Are we don't want to pay any extra amount what happens to the parents I mean to me it is because a lot of confusion. Four chords I don't see the consistency I don't see where you're going to have consistency if you say is just a guideline but the court can still have discretion where is the consistency of. Thank you for your questions Senator and to answer that question that the chart is presumptively valid but the court can deviate and the purpose for having the numeric chart is consistency that's the purpose of having it for those cases where the paying parent has fewer than one hundred forty one night that would be the purpose of it for those cases where the paying parent has more than one hundred and forty one nice but not true equal time and so again we're applying that rationale if the chart is good for those cases it should also be good for those cases up to equal time and in fact that's what federal law requires we believe and this bill would direct the Supreme Court committee to create that numeric chart for those cases. So Christmas holiday and vacation two weeks in the summer that's all part of the hundred and forty one overnight stays. Thanks given child's birthday so parent's gonna have to really keep some good calendars. What thank you very questions Senator the that's in every case there is a detailed defined schedule for parental time that defines how many nights. A paying parent has in so that's not uncommon and it already happens. But you agree that the court has not accepted this recommendation from this consult. I do agree that center and that's the purpose of the bill. Anymore questions from committee. Anyone in the audience would like to speak for against the bill. Seeing none. Senator Clark. Close for your bill thank you Mr the. Has been pointed out of the chart is mandated by federal law is the legislature that is mandated to do it doesn't say that we can't delegate and we have of the. The the purpose of the chart is partly to eliminate confusion so that all parties involved have some idea what to expect and there is still one gap in their which we are trying to eliminate and we think uh should be eliminated. Of think it's common sense as Mr Vandiver said that if it's proper for up to a hundred forty one days of its proper to over a hundred eighty two they were both parties are a hundred eighty two and a half days then it's proper for the the gap in between and we're not tell the court how to do it what it should be just simply that there it ought to be part of the chart and I think again it's a common sense thing coming from the people and also an experience thing and I would appreciate a good vote and make a motion to pass. I have a motion to pass. We have a second discussion. All those of favour say aye aye all opposed. The Bill pass to Senator Clark thank you roll call. Senator Hester hi Senator Hester hi. Senator Rice. Senator Rice aye. Senator Tucker Senator Tucker no senator Gilmore so the bill Gilmour no Sir to Mickey Senator Ricky I've. Senator Alan Clark on Senator Clark I. Senator flowers Senator flowers no. Bill fails Clark. Thank you Mr thank you members the twenty. March St center to your right. We'll. I have a bill of flowers if you want to go and take. That is. Senator Stubblefield. Please identify yourself and you're recognized to present Senate bill four fifty five. Check. Thank you madam chair of Senate bill four fifty five Senator Gary Stubblefield district twenty six. Senate bill four fifty five simply is an act to amend the membership of the Arkansas State Council for the Interstate Commission for adults Senator supervision. And I have a gentleman here to explain the details of the bill if he would identify himself who is with these recognized jury Bratcher all Director of the division of community correction thank you Mr members of the committee. The Interstate got compact this is organization that makes rules for the transfer of supervision of felons on parole and probation to other states. The department is proposing adding one prosecuting attorney and one should share of to the membership of the interstate compact council. The. Secures in the sheriff's play a vital role or stakeholders in this process prosecutors are required to issue warrants for probation violators reside in other states. Shares are required to hold offenders in their jails while they are awaiting return to other states and when they're brought back two Arkansas pitting a revocation hearing. Including representatives of these organizations in the State Council we give them opportunity to have input into how the process works included in a bi annual rulemaking meeting. Their cooperation is essential to Arkansas remain in compliance with the interstate compact rules including them on the Council would make the process run more smoothly and with that I'll take any questions you might have. Any questions of the committee members. Seeing none anyone here to speak for against the bill. It's not what if you'd like to close Senator Stubblefield close yes your honor I'm closed and appreciate a good vote. Your honor. I have elevated you again. We got a motion to fez from senator Gilmore second by Senator Hester all those in favor say aye. All those opposed no the Bill pass is Senator Stubblefield. Is there anyone else with bills run. But saying and. We are going to meet the. Ten minutes upon adjournment of the Senate. One. Counts more these within a few. Yes the. Per journey.