Judiciary Committee- House

Thirteen thirty nine members we have a motion on the floor to expunge the vote by which house bill thirteen thirty nine failed. this takes a two thirds of the membership so that we have an accurate is there any discussion on that motion. Your say what short title was on that I'm sorry it is thirteen thirty nine is to amend the law concerning the rule against perpetuities. That's thirteen thirty nine we have a motion to expunge going to S. barber to call the roll. Yes. Yes. Representative mix representative next yes representative Richmond yes the president Richmond yes representative Gazaway. Representative Gazaway. Representative Watson yes the Watson yes representative Crawford representive Crawford. Representatives act. Representative Scott. The representative council yes represent Clowney yes representative Cooper. Representative Cooper. Representative Richardson. Represent the Richardson. Representative Collins yes representative Collins yes representative McCollum said metallic yes representative Hudson. Representative Hudson. Representative Millikan. Represent the Millikin yes. Representative under what yes representive Underwood yes representative more. Representative more. Representative Duffield yes representative bill yes representative under yes representative I'm here yes. Representative Pearce representative Pearce yes representative Barry representative very yes. All representative shall be yes yes. Motions failed okay it's two thirds of a quorum and. The membership. All right next we're gonna start again representative Gazaway is not here. Let's move to representative Garner. House Bill sixteen eighty four House Bill sixteen eighty four. Let's see Garfield identify yourself for the record you're recognized to present house bill sixteen eighty four. Thank you madam chair Elise Garner representative from district twenty in Northwest Arkansas. You're recognized thank you very much. Colleagues I'm gonna make this short and sweet most of you know I'm a nurse I'm going to. Try to try to talk a little bit about Some controversial issues I know. But from the moment that are trigger line went into effect emergency healthcare providers have had to make wrenching legal and ethical judgment before treating a pregnant woman whose life or health may be in peril. Federal law requires emergency positions to provide whatever treatment is necessary to protect the life and health of a patient. In Arkansas an exception is carved out for abortions. Those that are performed to save the life of the patient but not to protect the health of a patient. It can be impossible to know when an individual patient might be at risk of dying and doctors exist to provide the best available treatment to keep those patients from reaching that point. Our law authorizes criminal prosecution of healthcare professionals for performing abortions. I've been approached by several healthcare workers from ER physicians and from obstetricians who have shared with me a couple of cases where the delay in abortion care has had devastating effects from reaching from the patient's health. One nineteen year old college station ex college student gets pregnant with an IUD in place the embryo develops around the I. U. D. and into the placenta. Abortion was delayed hoping for a spontaneous discharge. Four weeks after the diagnosis the I. U. D. moving with the expansion of the embryo. Perforated the mom's uterus. She hemorrhaged and though her life was saved by transfusions at nineteen she had to have a hysterectomy. Forty two year old premenopausal mom of three developed and early preeclampsia. And preeclampsia is a taxi me of pregnancy that usually comes with extremely high blood pressure and seizures while waiting to abort nationally she has a stroke and though her life was saved she has lost the use of her left side of the body. One more a twenty two year old pregnant woman with a very wanted pregnancy develop prom which is a premature rupture of membranes at twenty one weeks. The fetus is not viable at that point and the treatment of choice is abortion medication. The doctor ordered that abortion medication it was not available in the pharmacies near the patient. She became secretary and is now in the I see you with a heart rate of forty. Most of you know I was not college you nurse and I can't tell you how many times. Patients were diagnosed with cancer. At the time of a pregnancy. There other diseases as well as as cancer immuno suppressive disease asthma pulmonary cardiac a lot of those those issues are exacerbated during pregnancy. We've got to think I think beyond the imminent danger of health and allow our medical professionals to take care of their patients health. We're legislating to. Deny health care for your wives or daughters or sisters and ourselves. Please think about this let's talk about it last work with each other let's figure out a way to make sure that the specialists are able to do what they're trained to do and take care of the health care of of women who need these abortive issues these treatments. And with that I'll be glad to answer any questions members are there any questions representative you're recognized for a question it is meant for city council could you turn off your microphones we don't have any feedback thank you representative had said you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair representative garner is it within the standard of care for a provider to wait to provide treatment for a patient that is experiencing symptoms is it is it typical to wait until symptoms are are life threatening yeah. They're not it's not follows you're recognized and and in any situation other than those that you have outlined in terms of of abortion care being what the standard might be wouldn't it be considered malpractice for a physician to wait to provide treatment for some exterior Cause to happen yes exactly and that's part of the problem at many of these physicians especially of the gens are deciding not to practice obstetrics so they're practicing just got a college G. doing pap smears for the rest of their lives I guess and then we have a lot of folks that are saying that they cannot recruit OB Jensen Arkansas because nobody wants to take up already the malpractice insurance for OB Jen is extremely high and so when you pile on the fact that these folks don't have a clue when they can treat and when they can't and what they're going to be You know what they're gonna be liable for then they're leaving our state. Members any other questions. Seeing of. Seeing no further questions we do have to people who've signed up we have Karen at mu sic music. you're recognized to come to the end of the table if you will identify yourself then you may make your statement in regard to House Bill sixteen eighty four. Yeah push the hi my name is Karen music. Thank you so much for letting me be here representatives. It's been a very long day I'm associated with Arkansas abortion support network. We have helped women access abortion care for a long time so if you are familiar with me in a negative way. I want you to. Meet a few of the people that I've met clinic escorting over the past ten years. I'm gonna call her tonight at. She had three grown children she was forty one years old and she had multiple sclerosis. She was diagnosed at the age of thirty seven. At the age of thirty nine they put on the medication. That kept the M. S. from progressing further it was working. She got pregnant. This medication would have been fail for the baby she was under committee she was using every birth control available to her. She made access of an abortion and she's gone ahead and lived her life she would have everybody could not have possibly handled what it took to carry a pregnancy to term. Kiana had just been diagnosed with a very aggressive form of cancer she was twenty eight she had three kids and she was not pregnant when she went to and then was diagnosed as when she had a pregnancy test. She was pretty early in her pregnancy but this aggressive cancer need to treat a. Either the cancer would taker. And likely her fetus. Or she could start chemo immediately. I met her several years later in the grocery store. She had all her kiddos with her and she's leading a productive life. She made a choice. Mary it was her fifth pregnancy she had for boys. The fourth delivery same husband. Same family. For the pregnancy she almost died. She was in the hospital for four months. In the four month period of time in many times over and over again she was told by every doctor she saw to never again carry a baby to term because it would kill her. She practiced she and her husband practice birth control. As I think many of you know numbers controls one hundred percent effective she got pregnant. He's standing out there saying what am I supposed to do without her. She's going to die if she carries this pregnancy to term. They made a choice for themselves and their family they couldn't do that now in Arkansas. Women spend most of our lives either trying to not get pregnant or trying to get pregnant. It's an overwhelming responsibility that becomes even more critical when your choices to our to live or to die. If those are taken away from you. Where's our compassion. Where is it. Thank you. Thank you thank you for your testimony today. Next we have speak for the bill Allie Taylor. Good evening my name is alley Taylor I am a co founder and the executive director of Arkansas abortion support network to bell B. and committee members thank you very much I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue in the nearly seven years that the Arkansas abortion support network has been helping our Kansans to access necessary healthcare we have worked with countless clients who needed abortion care due to life threatening health conditions from the mother of three who was diagnosed with cancer at eight weeks to the college student with a heart condition that makes sense to me that makes pregnancy itself a life threatening condition and so many more than we have seen the hope and healing that can come from timely access to abortion care. I understand that this is a difficult topic for a lot of folks to grapple with I understand the dedication that you feel to your pro life ideals. And I'm asking that you extend that dedication to the pregnant women who face these difficult circumstances I'm asking you to put yourself in her shoes what would you do if your government prevented you from accessing chemotherapy as soon as you needed it. What would you do if the state barred you from accessing. Health care that you need to sit sustain a long and healthy life how would you feel if a family member was told that they could not access chemotherapy as soon as possible they were told they needed to delay radiation or surgical treatment by as much as eight months those eight months can mean the difference between life or death for a pregnant woman. And as you will note the majority of people who have abortions are already mothers I'm asking you to extended the compassion you feel for the unborn to the children who are already here I'm asking you to extend your compassion for the children who need their mothers to stay alive and healthy I ask you to extend your compassion to the husbands and fathers who could lose their wives and mothers of their children without abortion care all I'm asking is that you extend your compassion to the children and families and pregnant women of Arkansas please extend your compassion and pass this bill so that pregnant people may access the healthcare they need to live long healthy lives and be present for their families thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next we have on the list Bob. Matt one of the Mike Mahan. Yeah I think that everyone. This. Okay that's everyone who signed up to speak for against the bill representative garner you're recognized close for your bill thank you Committee and I I'm just excited to be here and to open up the discussion and hope that we can start thinking about abortion care in a in a different light in a way that is so important to so many women who have of these issues pregnancy is difficult even if if you don't have these health issues so the folks that that end up with with With conditions that. Make pregnancy even remotely more dangerous is frightening and it's happening here and the Care givers the professionals that are trying to care for these women are frightened of what they can do and what they can't do so I just hope that we can talk a little bit more about this this bill and. I with that I can't add any more to my testify or so I close for my bill. Members represent Garner his clothes for her bill with the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass on the floors or any discussion on the motion. Representative Crawford you're recognized to discuss the motion thank you madam chair Same song different buyers if we start abortion again in Arkansas it will not end. I too had I nephew and his wife was told that if she had another child she would die. But in the process they would do it he even had his. You don't call it to site but whatever he had a vasectomy and they got pregnant anyway. So what the doctor did is got on top of it and was able to help her take care of her health to the pregnancy and they had a healthy baby girl that they didn't expect these are sad stories The I believe or I know that and what the bill states is that the life of the mother. It's already in there. That the life of the mother is a reason for an abortion so we don't need this bill so for that I'll be voting no. The members any other discussion represent Richmond you're recognized for discussion. My biggest concern with this bill is that. It. It simply seems to take all the guard rails off there is no definition as far as. Health and what that actually encompasses so to me it's it's going to be such an arbitrary thing. That anybody who's wanting to perform the abortion will be able to make some claim somehow. That their health is being affected and that it can be and they can find somebody that will support that. And so I. No well I understand your intent what you're trying to do here and I am sympathetic with that I think that this should have been. More than just the language that you have it that it needed to be tighter than what it is. To to be able to get the kind of support that I think you need to pass this and because that I'm going to have to be a no. Members any other discussion. Seeing no further discussion we have a motion on the floor all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposing the. The nose habit bills failed. Madam chair. The president Collins copy recognized for motion. Hang on okay I'll come back to you I think I know what your motion is but I'm also trying to get some confirmation on some things thank you. represent foundation recognized to present house bill sixteen ninety three. Representative will get back to you out of the room so I get back I'll pick you back up here in a moment do we have an amendment we have an amendment on house bill sixteen ninety three. Represent flowers we're gonna pass over you would need to get your amendment signed for house bill sixteen ninety three. Oh no wait a minute no. Okay never mind we don't have amendments for sixteen ninety. I'm I'm counting on my my folks over here. Rep see first when she did it by yourself then you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you madam chair. I was in flowers and state representative for district sixty five at a Jefferson County. And. The second. Please today to present a piece of legislation that I have presented before. and I presented before with over two hours of testimony which I wanted to you today and but the bill is quite simple and I think the distinction today. That I have not had before is this bill has passed in other states now. so this is a bill that prohibits the imposition of the death penalty and instances of serious mental illness. Hi this is bill. Looking at the wrong bill on here I'm sorry. Okay to. This flower photo to. Yes then the file yourself go ahead and identify yourself let's start all over I can do that okay. Vivian flowers and state representative for district sixty five out of Jefferson County and I'm also pleased to present this bill this is the first time I'm presenting this bill but not the first time it has been before the just it to the Judiciary Committee. And let me start by saying this my introduction to this issue was watching a documentary that featured the circumstances around a young man named kharif Pryor he spent eleven hundred days in jail. waiting for a hearing in reikers island in New York. And he ended up eventually being released but committed suicide because of the experiences and the things he experienced while in jail. there are several other examples including in a a recent example here in Arkansas and so I wouldn't present a bill if it was something that didn't affect us I don't know if you all had heard about a young man named Larry Eugene price junior from Fort Smith. he was fifty five he was a schizophrenic he was homeless with an IQ below fifty five I mean pull up below fifty five he went into the jail. Six two and two hundred pounds. He died in jail in his own urine forgotten about starve to death. Largely because he couldn't afford to pay a one hundred dollar bill amount. Not a whole lot of things that happen in between that's wrong with the criminal justice system but we know that those things would not have happened if he had not been required to pay bail when instead he he needed help. So I'm I would like to stop here in the interest of time and ask for a witness to a bill with this is why I believe have signed up well I to what what what we're gonna do is we'll follow the order I always follow yes ma'am and so if you're through with your presentation right now and then if there are questions from the committee are there any questions right now from the Committee hi seeing no questions we do have an individual ceremony for the signed up to speak for the bill miss more you can come to the end of the table again if I yourself and then you're recognized to make your statement. Hi and my name is Sam one I'm the executive director of the Arkansas Justice Reform collection and for those that aren't familiar with organization event we've we are just a grassroots group of community that came together in Northwest Arkansas in two thousand nineteen concerned about how much and how many individuals in our community I will and do happen car station over other support that they needed in the community and so I am not an attorney but we have folks an organization from all walks of life and attorneys are and a part of my make up former judges and we speak with our criminal system I individuals on a on a regular basis and we've been having this ongoing conversation around the concerns around the fact that in two often times individuals are too poor to buy their liberty and for the simple and action as someone being shackled being able to reach into their back pocket and to pull out a hundred dollar bill and many of our jails are overcrowded and two thirds plus and the population and they are because they're just too poor to buy their freedom and so this bill and bill sixteen ninety three creates a presumption against cash bail for misdemeanors and restores the presumptions of innocence for Kansans who have not been convicted of a crime you know not found guilty. This bill also ensures that far fewer people are forced to spend the best time incarcerated just because they can't afford about and we know that we hear from sharing something judges across the state that are wanting there to be tell space for misdemeanor convictions and we have individuals again that are not connected there taking up all state and jail space for misdemeanor convictions that are being asked to a judicial and I I've sheriffs across the state. Additionally there are lots of concerns that cash ballot by awaits the spirit of the due process and equal protection clauses of both the US and Arkansas constitutions and also puts enormous pressure on individuals that are trapped in jail too played out just to be able to gain their liberty and despite whether or not they may be guilty or not guilty of that particular charge. And I'd also point to and the fact that we do have and has VOL nine point two from the Supreme Court and that actually reads that release on for many about the judicial officer shall set committee about only after he determines that no other conditions will reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant to court. We've had a really long session and a lot of recession has really focused on and talked about public health impacts end further taxpayer but Alliance on different systems and when people need help at and there's been concern since and some reductions to some of those helping programs I want to bring to your attention that in regard to public health concerns about this incarceration that happens to people due to their inability to pay is often and because of their need protection treatment and that you know what we do know and identify the Arkansas is battling a tremendous opiate epidemic and even short periods of pre trial detention significantly increased the probability that someone with substance use issues is going to experience a fatal overdose upon release. And then additionally looking at that taxpayer alliance people who've been jail because they're poor become even more reliant on homeless shelters and public assistance after they are released and said in the absence of time I'll and feed the remainder of my time and open up in the event there any questions members are there any questions. Seeing the questions thank you for your testimony today we have of Scott Bradley to speak against the bill Mr Bradley shall come to the into the table indemnify yourself and you're recognized to make your statement. Hi fi seem when it is because I. At a walk of the Otis's fastest but little legs would carry me. My name's Scott Bradley and I'm the director of the Arkansas sheriffs association I'm sure most of you in this room know that we've been around each other for part two and a half months now. I don't know if the shares to reach out to you about this issue or not I've definitely sent out to him and they're sick of receiving emails from me so. I just wanna say that. Right now there's a there are. You this read a hundred forty thousand people out that are out not in jail right now that are out waiting for trial. Okay a hundred forty thousand that are waiting to come back you know that are they're not on bond we don't we don't do misdemeanor bonds anymore okay we'll ever before so. The the citation thing I don't really understand it we'd rather have on the bond if they bond we have somebody to keep up with them and help them get back to court. And if nothing else to remind them when their court date is sometimes a phone call get some back to court. Talking to mile judging he would for me that he'll have in his dockets he'll call for a hundred your call hundred people to one of his you know what this court sessions hoping to get twenty five. Because the other ones don't come. There's no teeth there's no teeth there's no reason they just will come back to court in it a generation other fail to appear in court that generates a whole nother problem and then if we picked him up on a traffic stop or something they can't get out because they failed to appear for Friday will come back. All together there's around a hundred and a hundred and seventy thank you for your face what I said earlier. There's a hundred and seventy thousand points out right now the state of Arkansas. Thirty thousand those are felony the rester misdemeanors there's no one actively picking up the misdemeanors in Leicester stopped on a traffic stop. we're hoping that the bill coming forth with more room will create more room in a county jail so that we can start working or misdemeanor cases. We think about a hundred seventy thousand it's a large number but it's not even about the people that are out it's about the victims we were hundred seventy thousand victims to and that's not multiple charges on each one of them okay they all have multiple charges to. I do we just feel like the bond is important that they do post a bond so someone is responsible for getting them back to court in in the not enough Nelson reminding them the share simply can't do that but we can't get out and find them and bring them back. And for those reasons we oppose this bill. Members any questions represent County you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair so you just reference I think a judge expecting twenty five hundred is up and there's no other people who aren't showing up on people who are out on bond. Some of them some of our Lord. But some memorandum bond and not coming back in the bonds we need to be held liable for that they need to be held responsible for that. Yes ma'am. Per se hacen you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair I am in thank you for your testimony it's really helpful and I struggle with this but I wonder do you know in terms of that that awful news article that all of us read about that gentleman who who died in jail this man because he couldn't pay a hundred dollars I mean is is there any solution or any you know any middle ground or anything that that the sheriff's duty to ensure that we're not leaving people who would otherwise be able to bail out simply because they don't have that money available to them I mean that's a good question and I think probably a high percentage of the time I know when I was sure if if I had someone that couldn't bond obviously had some maybe some medical issues we will try to find ways to get him out as long as it wasn't something violent it long as they do have a victim out there that really you know have a victim we could look at trying to find ways to get him out. You know we want we we we what amount we have to have that system we have to have them and we can't put all the county jails we've been expanding county jails for years. and it's in it. You know I don't have all the answers but I just know the shares can't do their jobs and be responsible for one fine if people bring him back to court all the time. I think the bill bombing is a very valuable piece of the whole puzzle. Members any other questions. Seeing no further questions thank you Mr Bradley for here today we have no one else who is signed up to speak for against the bill I'm sorry judge Hale I didn't. I come to the end of the table identify yourself please. Thank you madam chairman of which hail Mr would district judge here to speak up against the bill take into consideration what you've previously heard regarding obviously the issues that people face both indigent poor of obviously Bob people of color as well as suffer in the criminal justice system right now the good news is that that's not the case here in Arkansas particular Pulaski County District judges here based on what you've already given us the authority to do site non violent misdemeanors within that thirty to the sheriff's we've given that authority to the police officer so somebody pull somebody over and they charged with the misdemeanor that's nonviolent they will be cited they will not be taken to jail required to post bond that authority in plastic counties also been granted for non violent felony offenders as well. They'll simply be cited with a court date as well. The ship raise a good point though the because of that and let instances particular cited there's a significant number of failures to appear I know judge Martin here's the right District Court criminal court judge myself insurer would. We now text those individuals to remind them when their court date is we get that information on their initial appearance in court and text of the reminders notes cut down fails to appear in at least sure within judge Martin I'm not sure about your court as well but forty percent. Simply text and remind and they need to come to court. The bill that that she is seeking is right now already low. The bill itself as it's presented however restricts what we judges can do regarding bailable offenses in Pulaski County for the past four years pre covered we've been studying how to make our pre trial system much more efficient and making sure of what happened what you're talking about at reikers island does not happen to somebody like him who is charged and held in jail for simply shoplifting in plastic K. the sheriff's office reviews those people are in custody after a certain period of time to find out why they're there any of the contact the court to see if there's a way that they can be released to print sure that something tragic like what you would mention does not happen in Pulaski County or in Arkansas as well. So the protections are there we as judges you seriously that right of an individual to who's accused to be present innocent throughout the entire process it's only to over there showing that they are guilty of course at the possible media but we present automatically that they're innocent and they're right to be released unless it's a violent offender and then then as a last resort we look at conditions regarding bail of course taken into consideration the safety of the victim. The problem with this bill that restricts our ability to do that particular in some violent offenses that are not mentioned the bill I would ask the committee to carefully consider pulling the bill aside so we can work with you regarding those particular offenses that may need to be included in this bill although again this is already the law now. And so I will yield any questions or members are there any questions for representative Crawford you're recognized for a question yes thank you madam chair may I address the sponsor. Ask her questions sure the first before I do I want to ask you if you pull this bill down but I do need to clarify something because I have a text here from my share of about the man that you were talking about Larry price he was in a facility on a mental health hold he had a history of violence he was violent in jail he refused to take medication eat or drink he had his own PC's we were ordered to hold him until he had an assessment at the state hospital so it fell through at the state hospital so I would ask representive flowers if you would pull this down and maybe work with them and required and make it work for for everybody thank you. Represent Collins you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair of my questions for the judge so do you think that a bond system and your bill pay system is is even handed for people of all monetary means or do you think that there can never be situations where you're benefit from having more money. It It individual situation to be honest with based on whatever factors their employment writer so. True that the bail bond system in the past has been abusive regarding people kept in jail they can't afford to be built dealer should be there like you're pointing out earlier but it's one individual factor I think as the system is set up now which is already in the law it works perfectly. The vote bill becomes really a consideration when it's a violent offense and then at that particular time the judge considers the factors that are already present in the law so far as with the not based upon. The announcmenet the individual earns what kind of bill they can set and fortunately I know judge Martin in my court as well are public defenders interview those defendants and discuss with them their financial situation because again we consider bills only as a last resort and so we try to look at the version pretrial services to but with the obviously with the intention of protecting the victim that's got to be paramount over anything else. Then based upon. You know almost if I guess experience for the lack of a better word within make a determination of what the bill should be to ensure that individual will come back to court which is the purpose of Clark concerning the sheriff's concern quick follow up you're recognized thank you and thank you for your answer so when you said that you think this system works perfectly I want but working out but when it comes to the ability to pay to me a perfect system would not favor someone who has the ability to pay versus someone who doesn't do you think that our current system in no circumstance favors someone who has means yes that's a great point it could it could that's or someone right exactly and that's what we've been steady to make sure something like that that happened in Pulaski County judge very high the plus county judge the platform unfortunately got a grant from that the advanced policy in pre trial. Least system which a grant funded by the macarthur foundation look at those very issues so we can avoid those issues but yeah that's a very legitimate concern. You're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair and detail AT it seems like some of this conversation a lot of that is really centered around concerns about treatment of of pre trial detainees who may have behavioral health and mental health problems and needs are there any safeguards or any requirements already built into the regulations in the system that require some sort of assessment of whether or not and at pre trial detainee needs to be transferred to and you know timelines for how quickly that needs to happen and and and things like that not at this time no less I don't believe there are there there's it presently in plastic counted I want to harp on plastic cable that's what I'm from there are we encourage law enforcement taking mental health issues to divert those particular people to certain courts for services that are already available now that while they're in custody again depending on where that they can be relates not they can have access to and this their services range is phenomenal we we have a pre trial services and I know just Martin doesn't her court as well if we have somebody with mental health issues to get those matters addressed while there the case is pending hopefully the ninety custody getting treatment rather than being in custody and waiting. Represent Scott you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair thank you judge for being here my question is I've heard sometimes if there's a little pushback from law enforcement from use in the crisis stabilization center have you heard that. No I'm on the committee with that and it's been very successful there's unfortunate been a lack of response to by someone force not all simply because it the problem with the credit crisis stabilization units as they don't have to stay they can readily be dropped off there and they walk out and if the shares will take in some instances sadly they'll go back to committing what they know which is some kind of crime to survive economically and so that's been I guess the biggest factor that we had overcome regarding the crisis stabilization unit because it's very effective when those people get there and stay because they get the treatment that they get a referral out for follow up. Thank you thank you president Clinton you're recognized for a question thank you ma'am chair Does it do you use I'm just type out the system do you use ability to pay on every person yes okay what other conditions critics were considered in that situation as well. Employment with you know what financial obligations they have they fill out a form and they go over basically with my public defender their financial situation he goes over the child support obligations what your income what your liabilities what what kind of earnings the Macon and therefore they we thank attack termination of what kind of bill bill they can make that will guarantee their appearance. Hello you're recognized thank you and what what are some of those other things that help guarantee their parents that aren't cast has to the community if they have a house of obviously if they're employed which is significant as they don't want to lose their job. Okay thank you. Members any other questions. Seeing a further questions thank you judge helping here this evening. We have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representative flowers you're recognized close for your bill thank you so much reading chair just wanted to share a couple things and I know that that was a lot of information and I know that also we have in touch or scratch the surface I think one of the main issues here is our mental health dynamics and really the capacity for our state to provide mental health services for people rather than them sitting in jail we I also when you think about our crisis centers we have very few centers and I know that my county is expected to work with the crisis center here so we have so many counties that don't have immediate access as as you know for counties to. there we know that there are constitutional violations that happen every day because of the jail overcrowding and then we have really a lack of comprehensive data so that we can determine you know what we could do better what's working in one county versus another eccentric and then I'll finally share a couple of things with you that I learned in the process of preparing for the bill it's important to note that California New Mexico Kentucky Nebraska Indiana New York in New Jersey have all successfully made some type of changes to their bail laws each varying on a state by state basis there has been near elimination of cash bail in both New Jersey and Washington DC and a study published by a nonprofit nonpartisan organization shows that in New Jersey fewer people have been arrested for low level crimes and jail populations decreased so I think those are the things that we need to think about in terms of defining what cash bail reform looks like in Arkansas and I really do appreciate and respect the comments of everyone who came here to comment on this and because judge Hale indicated that they are studying this issue and I have been asked to pull the bill down I you all know how I have dug into one of my other bills and worked really really hard and I'm going to say here that I plan to do the same on this issue in combat prayerfully in two years and come back with a bill that everyone has worked on that recognizes our existing law and recognize the needs of Arkansas in the hopes that you all can take it seriously and we get get something passed out to address these issues because even though and I appreciate the information that representative Crawford's sheriffs and That still never should have happened to that that man he was sick and we could point to the fact that we have one State Hospital and one part of the state but we have a lot of prisons and a lot of jails and we know that in those jails we heard from judge Martin that the legislative black caucus meeting when she shared with us what those capacity issues have that mean for her court and mean for sales and several other people testified so I'll end with that and say that I will pull the bill down and I want to thank you committee for hearing me present the bill today and hearing from witnesses. Thank you representative flowers without objection will allow your bill to be pulled thank you so much. A quick question even as I'm pulling it down is there what is the process and I probably should know this by now but what is the process to turn the bill over to get it in the interim study and talk with your chapter but it's been awhile I kind of have to remind myself that there was something we could do their session sent by you can do so I'll find out find out I'm I'm sorry it's six o'clock not forgotten okay. Least I'm honest. Cloudy. Representative plowing. recognize you for a motion installation you may have a motion to expunge of. Other motion vote yes please like to make a motion to expunge the motion to expunge. The vote on the previous motion to expunge on house bill thirteen thirty nine yes please members we have a motion on the floor to expunge the motion to expunge the vote that was taken earlier and this is in regard to House Bill third. Thirteen thirty nine I believe any discussion on the motion. This does take fourteen out of the membership L. S. barber to please help any discussion I'm sorry seeing no discussion call the roll. Members for those of you who may not have been here earlier. There was a previous motion to expunge the vote on which house bill thirteen thirty nine failed earlier in the day in on that motion the motion failed. And so now this motion is to expunge the vote upon which the original motion to expunge failed and so if this passes then we will be back to where we could consider thirteen thirty nine if the House sponsors so wishes to have it considered so with that I will route to call the roll. A representative mix representative makes yes. Representative Richmond. The Richmond yes representative Gazaway. Representative Gazaway. Representative to Watson. The Watson yes. Representative Crawford. Representative profit making sure of thank you to. Correct yes. Representative Scott. What is that yes representative cloudy representative Clowney yes representative Copeland representative Cooper yes representative Richardson representative Richardson yes representative Collins representative Collins VS representative metallic representative McCullough yes representative Hudson representative yes representative Millikan representative Milliken yes representative under what I do with yes representative more representative more yes representative DeFeo representative they'll feel yes representative under represented on here yes representative Pearce representative peers yes. Represent the very representative very yes the motion passes. But for those of you who may wonder why we have to take that vote it takes fourteen votes of the whole membership so that's why we have to call to make sure we have the fourteen votes represented Lundstrum would you like to come and present house bill thirteen thirty nine a. Yeah. Now we have to do if I can have a motion. Yes motion to expunge the vote by which house bill thirteen thirty nine failed. All right now we're back in right position I should be in my Wheaties today okay well that a motion to expunge the vote on house bill thirteen thirty nine call the roll. Hey we're voting to expunge the vote. Representative next represent the next yes representative Richmond center Richmond yes representative Gazaway representative Gazaway. Representative Watson Watson yes. Representative Crawford Crawford yes representatives that. Representatives that yes. Representative Clowney yeah the county yes representative Cooper. Representative Cooper yes representative Richardson the representative yes representative Collins the Collins yes representative McAllen McAllen yes representative Hudson yes to the Hudson yes representative Milligan that was the member can yes representative under what represent the Underwood yes representative more. The more yes. Representative bill yes the feeling yes representative under. Representative I get yes. Representative here's. The Pierce yes representative very. Motion carries now we're to the point representative. Flat whoever you are Lundstrum. I'm for whatever as long as you don't call me late for dinner at this point we are late but you're recognized too quickly president house bill thirteen thirty nine Collins I'm thankful to be here and I'm thank be thankful for a good vote. All right members you you know what the bill is about you've heard the explanation of the bill. A couple times if not three times and so what is there any discussion. From any questions seeing the questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against house bill thirteen thirty nine representative was from you're recognized to close for your bill colleagues this is about competition putting Arkansas on the map and bring money and assets to Arkansas with that I would appreciate a good vote and thank you for your time members representative Lundstrum has closed for a bill with the wishes of the committee I have a motion to do pass a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion on the motion. Seeing no discussion all in favor please say aye. All opposed say no congratulations you've passed your bill thank you colleagues. Per se Lundstrum I would have to put you back in the queue because I'm taking people have not been heard before that's okay I'm gonna go into billing Revenue and Tax and pester them for a minute come back will probably be here. All right members. Now we're back on track I think the next bill that we have up is representing flowers your bill on house bill sixteen ninety four. The members of the public if you're wondering what we're doing we're taking those bills that have never been heard in this committee we're doing that first. What we pick up those bills that have been heard before in a back up again so representative flowers members if you'll turn to House Bill sixteen ninety four representative flowers you're recognized to present house bill sixteen ninety four thank you members I'll be brief and you heard me Sturch Iran is the last time talking about it so house bill six tanks sixty ninety four Vivian flowers District sixty five Jackson County house bill sixty ninety four would limit the imposition of the death penalty to those who are not seriously mentally ill I've run this bill before we have had expert a psychologist we've had faith leaders and exposed in the law testify and I do have I believe there's someone here who is an expert on these issues and and an attorney to talk to you about it today but I'll say this the law currently post conviction of allows for consideration of these issues as it relates to sentencing and as it relates to ability To stand trial if I'm saying it in the right way. What this bill would do was take into consideration on the front end of a trial the serious mental illness. Of a defendant. Before going into all of the other dynamics. Of the of a trial in a case understanding that someone who is seriously mentally ill committing a crime is very different than someone who was not and and I'm I'm making it bill bones and will allow a legal expert to give you more specifics around how this would work and I would also say that I have got a lot of good help from my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make this a better bill over the years the only thing that I'll mention that I think it's very important is this bill was taken from a Republican legislator out of Ohio because mental illness knows no party it it knows no bounds first for sure it in Ohio as well as in Kentucky this legislation has passed since the last session so I hope that you here from our expert with open hearts and open minds and with that madam chair I'm open for any questions at this point members are there any questions of the House sponsor. Seeing no questions we do have an individual who signed up to speak for the bill. Alley. But find the. On the Ronda Ronda I'm sorry. Is it to the in the table it it looks like a less than expression but I'm not quite sure so if you will state your name then you're recognized to speak in favor of house bill sixteen ninety four thank you representative Dalby my name's for Rhonda brass field I am a local attorney and I'm here to speak in favor of house bill sixteen ninety four. I'm sorry eight house bill sixty ninety four and and house bill six ninety four would it be and the death penalty for defendants who were severely mentally ill at the time of the offense. House bill sixty ninety four would prohibit imposing the death penalty on or carrying it out against individuals who were severely mentally ill it at the time of the offense that they are significantly impaired their judgment their capacity or the ability to appreciate the nature of their conduct I'm H. B. sixteen ninety four designate the theory the disorders as severe mental illnesses and they include schizophrenia bipolar disorder or delusional disorders. Now the presence of a disk order is not sufficient in and of itself to exempt an individual from capital prosecution or execution this bill would require that the mental illness significantly impair the person's capacity to exercise rational judgment in relation to his or her conduct with respect to either conforming the person's conduct to the requirements of the law or in appreciation of the nature consequences or wrongfulness of his or her conduct H. B. six nine sixteen ninety four a fourth capital defendants an opportunity for pre trial evaluation of their mental condition and a pre trial hearing in which the court determines their eligibility for the death penalty defendants would prove prove by a preponderance of evidence that they were severely mentally ill at the time of the crime. And they cannot be sentenced to death but if they were convicted it's not a situation where there to get to go home they would face an automatic sentence of life without parole. This is different than the and then insanity and that this would give a middle ground for mentally ill defendants who don't meet this them standards for the insanity defense but who because of their reasoning was too impaired they cannot be fully held responsible for their crime and those individuals with face life imprisonment. That the without the possibility of parole. That's what I'm here to testify am recommending that this committee please pass eight HB sixteen ninety four. Members are there any questions representative okay you're recognized for a question thank you manager I'm not an attorney but I'm just curious what would prevent a defense attorney just to go shopping for a psychiatrist to give them the diagnosis that they're looking for so this bill requires that an individual what would have have to have a prior diagnosis that's listed in the actual bill before the crime was committed so they have to have that prior diagnoses for the severe mental illness and then they have to they would have committed a crime by which day that Schizophrenic you would have to have a prior diagnosis. Thank you thank you. Members any other questions. Seeing no further questions thank you for being here this evening and thank you for your testimony thank you for your consideration. We have no one else who signed up to speak for or against the bill. Represent flowers you're recognized to close for your bill thank you so much if you all we you you've heard the information and I think that that I appreciate representative Unger's question that's actually one of the things that that we changed and the last time that this bill was presented I just would ask you to be mindful of the fact that this is not something that is being brought forth to provide a way out but really to provide some balance in how we administer the death penalty into home but also it's something that victims have come and testified in support of in the past because we know how the system works and often times it is in a in a dramatic a case such as the the murder of a loved one. Often times the process can be another insult to injury having to wait years and years and years and that process and then at at some point you may not get that you thought that you were going to get. this is not something that is going to be retroactive either so that's something else that we added to the bill last time if the bill were to pass today it's not something that an attorney representing someone who was on death row or being considered for crime and and the imposition of the death penalty could come back and say oh they passed this bill so let's redefine how how we look at this case that has already but begun or been a judicata it so again I would ask you to take those things into consideration in terms of how we have made this bill better and balance to address the issues and the needs that we know we have in this state as it relates to mental illness and mental health we know this is not something where we're talking about severe depression we're talking about very severe mental illness and with that I will close and ask for your consideration thank you madam chair thank you Committee. Members representing flowers is cause for bill with the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion on the motion. Seeing no discussion all in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no. The nose habit the bills failed. Representative Richardson are you in the room house bill seventeen thirty seven. But one at your other brother. The triplets. Scott Scott Richardson the next members. Let's move the next one down the list is house bill seventeen forty five representative under you're recognized to present house bill seventeen forty five. Representative Steve Unger District nineteen. A colleague's house bill seventeen forty five came to me as a recommendation from the Washington County sheriff in one of our judges up there. took me by surprise to find out that cutting off your ankle monitor. And smashing it with a rock or whatever or just not charging it is not actually against the law. you you could get hit with the failure to comply with a court order. And this seems to be an epidemic problem in our overcrowded jails. Is people mistreating this and there needs to be some penalty. Of this bill was drafted with the help of my sheriff and his legal counsel. It does if you look at it you can see it's graduated grade eight have your say that that if you are out on a misdemeanor and you cut off your ankle monitor you basic will be charged with a misdemeanor so if you're just a knuckle head this is not going to destroy your life however if you're out on parole with a Class D. felony cutting off your ankle monitor is a Class D. felony you need to get slapped for that. pre trial release and parole is a privilege. And it shouldn't be abused Up in Washington County I've heard the figure that we've had people with as many as nine felonies just kind of running amok. do are overcrowded jails and we need to help our friends in law enforcement. From. Open questions president Clinton you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair I have a question about this charging stuff so first of all if you could just kind of walk me through logistically what do that what are the charges for these things if the charger gets lost for instance it is is it at is there a fee to replace it how much is that how does that work physically. You know the answer that. Identify yourself you can you may answer Joe Joe per secretary of corrections madam chair and committee representative the charges are very based on the system in the county so and the prices are all very different. You're recognized for a follow up thank you madam chair I understand what you're trying to do with this bill I do I guess I just my concern is is this another instance of a punishing potentially punishing people for being poor or for something that's not their fault you know if they if they just lose its charge and they don't really have that culpable they're not culpable in the way that you just described because I don't see that in the bill and that mental state that they sort of intentionally failed to charge their device or you know I guess can you address whether or not there is a risk that this well punish people. Who don't have the means to just say pay for replacement charger. I don't think the issue is misplacing Chargers in a totally I worked at a halfway house for felons on parole for year and a half we had a Arkansas parole officer on the premises he was a user friendly guy and if one of the fellow ones that actually legitimately lost their charger as many of us have for our phones or whatever I'm sure he would have helped them come up with them but that is really not what's going on there's just more malicious action here of deliberately failing to charge or cutting off. The president because you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair what I mean so. It's not really deliberately doing that too with the with the purpose of your dating under this bill it this is strictly ability this just says they failed to charge the electronic monitoring device and so you don't have to have the men's room that the criminal mind with this particular offense but not really my my question is about the difference in the penalty based on the different underlying offense. You know when someone is convicted of a felony they do their time for a felony that they're punished for a felony when they do a misdemeanor that's what they get I don't understand why and we're taking the same offense and making such a dramatic difference in the punishment based on the underlying offense it's almost like double jeopardy we're punishing them twice once because they have a more severe underlying felony that they're already doing their time for or did their time for in the process of serving it can you explain why you think that's fair to to tie the voter charge offense to the underlying offense. We've got felons on parole who did not folder did not do their fourth sensor is what they call their drop dead date they were polled but a condition of the poll was wearing an ankle monitor in so if you're going to have that privilege there ought to be enough self awareness to manage yourself that you remember to charge your device. Follow up you're recognized do you think the lack of self awareness is worse when the person was convicted of a misdemeanor before first as a felony I mean it how is that different you know either you don't have self awareness. Or you do I don't understand why it's the worst thing to do you know you mentioned you don't go back in the ring you know I've been applying this in there where you really mind if you get a second felony Class D. felony is pretty severe going to jail for that we'll what I said not running your life as really referring to the misdemeanor right but there's a felony in this well yes and if you committed a felony and you are just going to damage fail to charger destroyer NO a monitor that is wanting the privilege of release and there needs to be accountability for that. Thank you. The representative color you're recognized for a question of chair the revenue impact assessment on this. We do not. I have a follow up please you're recognized for follow up I can you tell me how often these are used to understand that the really expensive are these widely used or and are they used all over the state. Ma'am I believe they are widely used the figure that was quoted me on the cost of these was I think four hundred and seventy five dollars and so we just have a lot of people running around with ankle monitors on and I am given to believe I know what's happening in Washington County I'm given to believe it's happening. Everywhere. Follow up. Manager can I ask for a a fiscal and a S. impact assessment. Is that what you're are you requesting yes ma'am. Members we have before us a request for a fiscal impact statement in the sentencing impact statement which represent a vendor you know as a member of this committee want set tests for the year your bill is set off to the side to we get that we have Relaxed our rules in the house so I'm hoping that the sentencing commission I don't see her here but that she's listening and can get that done fairly quickly some with that we you can go ahead and. To finish anything else you wanna talk about we would come back to it but it will probably be Tuesday when we get to it yes ma'am I understand I do have another bill in the hopper okay members with that we're going to pass over then. House bill seventeen forty five for purposes of a fiscal impact statement in the sentencing commission report so let me make that note in barber Human. Representive under the very next bill happens to be your bill which is house bill seventeen fifty seven members of your trying to House bills seventeen fifty. Thank you madam chair and I'm still representative Stephen District nineteen this bill came to me is an idea from this gentleman who sitting beside me of all the reams of paperwork that this building is produced to protect law enforcement officials one of the people in our staffs that was left out was the ability of the secretary of corrections and his some of his staff members to carry firearms for their own protection what the certified law enforcement official. It's a high risk job in a corrections secretary was murdered a few years back by a white supremacist who had just been released from prison the. Get blamed for A lot of things that happen in prison they just need to be able to protect themselves I'm really not sure what else I could say about that. Membership card an explanation of the bill is there any questions for the bill sponsor representative callup Collins you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so why can't the the people covered by this just a concealed carry permit. Thank you Sir that's a good question basically they need to be able to carry. What we need to be able going to the parking lot of the corrections facility which I don't know that you can conceal carry in the parking lot and then they need to be able to carry it from their parking place in their office I need to be able to carry it into the state capitol or any other state building like any other law enforcement officer which you can't do with a concealed carry permit. Follow up you're recognized for a follow up so why would an employee of the department of corrections need to carry a handgun concealed weapon into the capital I don't understand why that's useful Sir if you have. I mean in some cases I can understand why generally speaking is that always going to be important. Job for Secretary corrections about a chair the Committee representative the threats to the a a law enforcement official or corrections director secretary or commissioner transcendent cation the the the capital and many other locations or or the people's buildings they're open to the public and there is always the potential for the opportunity for risk. One last follow up please you're recognized and I you know I really have an objection to that part of it you know the the secretary or a member of the board I think it's the part where the secretary can designate it any employee of the department if they meet certain criteria to also carry a concealed handgun I mean the Secretary could theoretically that pretty broadly and you know whether or not you what I don't know what someone could and I just don't know what we're serving when you get down to other employees low up for people who really don't have any. You know engagement with the issues that could make him a target that makes sense. Can you explain that part of informing better secretary committee and representative certainly obviously there would be a level discussion with my approval for anyone in the apartment carrying there would have to be at the need in a risk associated with that approval there certain individuals in the department of corrections that are high level high ranking officials Director corrections director community corrections that sometimes can be impacted by their inability to carry concealed if they're not law enforcement and so for those level individuals it is important for them to be approved under my discretion to carry those a weapon of for their own self preservation and protection additionally there could be risks that emanate based on the work on individual case by case basis and those incidents whether we're engaged in enforcement of gang activity within the facilities or it impacting new policy which is the reference that the representative mentioned to the proposed to the director that was murdered at his home and died in hands of his daughter and his wife by white supremacists who came to tufts emerge him because he was impacting confinement conditions associated with gang members and the president and so one was released and came after him and so when you enact certain policies or you do certain things within the facilities that can create risk and and based on that risk in the known equation to that to me it may be prudent for me to approve somebody to carry a concealed weapon. The representative Richard center recognized for a question thank you madam chair of sixteen did you is this common that people in your level across other states carry weapons for protection did you do that in in Arizona by any chance. Melcher woman committee representative yes Sir I did I was been certified police officer for the past thirty three years corrections practitioner for thirty five as I rose through the ranks and its use of what the director's level position in Arizona I did carry a weapon concealed had a mercy equipment for my vehicle safer installed in my home security equipment installed in my home my family was trained for specific threat level protection and additionally I had a security detail saying to me. Members any other questions represented the field you're recognized for a question. If this passes today who's going to accept the liability. Madam chair Committee representative I would anticipate that we are state employees good governed by the state of Arkansas and it would be the State of Arkansas that it would. Accept the risk obviously anybody carrying a weapon and approved to carry a weapon including myself would be effectively trained into Arkansas standards for weapons handling and utilization. Representative Peter sure recognized for a question Silesia which that will carry in you let Carey will go to some type of law enforcement training will be certified as that to carry that weapon in my correct by saying that. Ballinger committee representative the anyone that I approved to include myself should this committee of endorsed this particular bill would be trained and handling of firearms used to for situations associated with the carrying of a weapon. The. All up you're recognized I didn't answer is gonna be trying that to folks who will survive and when they go to the Department public safety law enforcement standards if you have any direction as to who they will go through to certify them Sir. At a chair of committee represent my apologies for misunderstanding a question the department corrections has current certification processes for law enforcement officials in the handling of firearms and they would be trained accordingly by firearms personnel and certified instructors with the Department corrections. Thank you thank you madam chair members any other questions. Seeing no further questions we do have up Vincent France is there You are I'm sure you're hiding behind our a professional wrestling I didn't see you. Former former. Mister French Hill identify yourself for the record and you're recognized make your statement thank you chair madam chair Vincent France W. general counsel for the department of corrections and I think they've pretty much laid it all out the. This bill is needed because regardless of whether or not employees have an enhanced or concealed we still can't have the weapons in our vehicles and so We do there are employees communications directors who may not be logged certified law enforcement officers just because you're employed by the Arkansas department of corrections does not necessarily mean your certified law enforcement officer what you do faces same rest that a lot of those law enforcement officers do and this Bill is modeled after bills that are already in place for instance is modeled after a twelve fifteen two oh two which allows deputy prosecutors and gives the like to prosecute the discretion of who can carry and so. This very similar type of bills already in existence we're just asking it be extended the law for the department of corrections as well. We have no one else who signed up to speak thank you for your testimony today I'm sorry mistress of we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representative under you're recognized to close for your bill. Colleagues in close the for the bill I ask you for a good vote thank you. Are you making a motion I'm making a motion do pass thank you women who have a motion to do pass on the table is hearing discussion of the motion all in favor of the motion please say aye. Opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you have passed your bill representive I'm gonna let you know the the wonders of people watching us we heard from the sentencing commission and they have sent a sentencing commission reported we're getting that printed so once we get that will bring a house bill seventeen forty five back up. Representative colleges for the record on that seventeen forty five are you dropping your request for the physical impact in going with the sentencing commission report yes ma'am okay thank you. Hang on my daughter's calling I need to let her know I'm busy right now. In the chair gets hot so the heat the heating called is all determined. I have very little power in life but one is the temperature you get my age you'll do the same. All right members. I can't keep the elusive Gazaway in the room let's go with house bill seventeen sixty one that's the very next one representative Garner or you in the range may be up. Okay it if you go go ahead and get her or get a lined up I can move to another one real quick representive Underwood House Bill sixteen thirteen. Member's house bill sixteen thirteen. Senator Rapert you're recognized the identify yourself in you may present house bill sixteen thirteen thank you and share acting under District sixteen and is it okay if I have some guests here help me to present yes thank you all speak we can go over was that what the bill does And kinda go there's several sections of bills that had just briefly give you said it's been a long time so revaluation action does and then I'll turn over the to these individuals let them present to maybe help they probably answer questions that I can't the person's bills to clean up and help the process of petitions for orders of protection make it easier for victims of domestic violence so it sections one and sections five kind of go together the language for domestic abuse and domestic violence was located in two separate code provisions so is removed from section five and then it was added into section one so that that section just consolidates that language and section two. it clarifies the petitions for orders of protections to be filed in circuit court. Section three requires this that requires the circuit Clerk to provide a person seeking or protection a pamphlet that gives victims information regarding domestic abuse prevention and intervention. section four clarifies the protections that may be requested by petitioner and ordered by the court. Section five is levied from the code the codes that sorry I already will cover that song on this but session six as regarding hearing remote appearances that section gives the victim and other witnesses the ability to testify outside the presence of an alleged abuser but it does not limit the queues parties right to cross examine and accusers I think that's an important point section seven streamlined service of process and ensures that orders of protection are entered into the NCIC database section eight requires the an expert hearing a petition alleges the respondent has violated an order of protection and finally section nine us that's what's the guidelines and requirements for any court that establishes a domestic violence intervention program I know what that kind of quickly but again I know it's late and you guys probably want him to keep talking if he has anything you like to add an opportunity. That record if you're just identify yourself you'd like to add something police to. Thank you madam chairwoman in committee and my name is brandy day I am with the Arkansas coalition against domestic violence I am also childhood survivor of domestic violence I hope I can provide some expertise and perspective to any potential questions you have we are here today to support this bill as it closes critical gaps in between services and enhances measures four offender accountability thank you judge hello do you have anything you'd like to add no madam chairs just as strongly support the bill. Right members are there any questions. Seeing no questions. We have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representive Underwood you're recognized to close for your bill the quick and say I'm closing the commotion to past members we have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion of the motion. Seeing no discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you have passed your bill thank you committee thank you Sir thank you. Represent under if you'd like to go back to the end of the table will come back to house bill seventeen forty five we now have the sentencing commission report it's being passed up to members. All right members you have the Arkansas sensing Commission report impact assessment on house bill seventeen forty five. And as previously Announced represent the color has withdrawn her request for the fiscal impact statement for this one so we do have the sentencing commission report. Let's take a look at that if you have some questions of representive Unger. Seeing no questions we have no one else who signed up to speak for or against UPS I I keep forgetting you today I am apologize there you are seventeen forty five river Mr presence wag to speak against the bill I apologize Mister is inspected. Jefferson like Arkansas so station of criminal defense lawyers and some members of already pointed out some of the problems going this highlight them of the two ways you can commit this offense one of them is written as a strict liability offence and of it needs to have a recognition either a culpable mental state or at least a written in there's a defense that it is that what you did if you did it was without good cause or without just cause they're all sorts of circumstances where you're paying me not be properly each may not be charged one is of they've issued you some sort of L. cheapo device that can't hold a charge or if there is a black out you know the the the electricity is out and can't FOR do anything for two or three days they're all sorts of possibilities that one can imagine that one one could have good good cause to not complied with the certainly the St Clair ability aspect of it there may in fact also be reason about removing the electronic monitoring device if there's some sort of medical emergency for instance where the where it conflicts with some other you know the second surgery of some sort same reason people pacemakers can't go through some scanning devices so if the very least it needs to have some sort of without good cause or without just cause criterion in the bills. Members are there any questions. Thank you representative I mean peers you're recognized for a question. Is is there not already laws in place for those emergency situations that you're aware of well as as we stand now well it says knowingly removes it it doesn't say I mean obviously if the if you say someone decides in it need to have it removed for a medical procedure and if it is your knowingly remove it but you got to have the medical procedure I don't think that'll happen too often but will happen some certainly with that with a population like that better the Bill. And the worst part of it the more defective part of it is the strict liability with no defense on the on the fact that it didn't hold charge. The representative present you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair Mister president I what do you make of the sort of eye for an eye and. Graduated and. It. Never miss merry felony that we have based upon the underlying charge that the representative Condit's time at earlier where if you're underlying charges a felony and you you are charged with this at at by an election of this statute and that's a felony under line charges a misdemeanor in your type of violation of this than than this is a misdemeanor to see anything like that and the code as it exists now there are there are some with but not generally not as precise is that where it's a for a may be for a B. C. four C. generally if it's a for instance on failures to appear it's a certain level felony if you fail to appear for a felony and misdemeanor if you fail to appear for misdemeanor but the failure to appear has without just cause or without good cause in there and also point out to this bill not only applies to probationers and parolees or found who've already been found guilty or judicata guilty but it also will apply to the text of it to precut to pre trial release people who are presumptively innocent and constitutionally entitled to be released and a judge can say okay I got a release you or I'm going to release you but I'm gonna put you on this thing but they have not been adjudicated guilty of anything. Members any other questions. Thank you Mr president thank you for your testimony today we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representative under you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you ma'am. I can't speculate at the end was scenarios that could possibly cause one of these monitors to not hold the charger be removed from your body it could be an electrical storm a alien invasion or maybe one of your limbs was hacked off by and enjoy. But the truth is at least in Northwest Arkansas we do not have inspector give their of waiting is chasing people down with bad intentions actually what I have seen in my limited time in the law enforcement and also working as a volunteer at a halfway house for felons on parole was actually people leaning in with compassion if you had somebody who was out on release and was it lease making an effort to better rural life what I have seen is a law enforcement and corrections officials bending over backwards to accommodate them and I cannot you know imagine if we had somebody wearing when these monitors it would needed to take an MRI or something that nobody's going to throw me in jail for that you know the context before I came down here I think this happened in December we had a car jacking in fade bill were a college kid delivering. Pizzas for dominos. Carjacked at gun point. car stolen hi pursuit cops stop them. And then of the perpetrator was given a ticket was being taken to jail because our jails are so full these are the consequences just for wanting the law and I wish I could have made a more perfect product. But in the spirit of it is is holding people accountable because the world where people are not being held accountable is not really want to. A world you want to live in with that I close my bill and I ask for good vote thank you ma'am are you making a motion to do pass yes ma'am I have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion of the motion representative claiming you're recognized for discussion thank you madam chair I agree with you representative under I I had to one world accountability but I think accountability means being responsible for things that you're responsible for and I and I this just feels I appreciate all of the funny hypotheticals that you gave but there's a very real hypothetical or somebody just in good faith loses their charger and then we're really potentially changing the course of their lives by adding means additional misdemeanors or felonies under the under the time they're already starving I think there's a relatively easy fix it's not as if it's not as if that problem is unstoppable and that there is no way to address the problem that you want to address and I understand why you do without also not creating a scenario where we are catching many more people who are truly just doing the best that they can I I am Groot glad to hear that you have the experience that you have and and and have faith that people do the right thing and help people who are truly well intentioned but I think we shouldn't have to rely on just hoping that that will always be the case our job is to make sure that the law ensures that parents happens not that we hope other people ensure that parents happens this prospects me as creating a lot of potential for a lot of unfairness and for that reason I have to vote now thanks. Members any other discussion. Say no further discussion we have a motion to do pass on the table all in favor please say aye. All opposed say no. Is have it. I see two hands to call the roll. Representative necks. Representative next. Representative Richmond yes member center Richmond yes representative Gazaway. Representative Gazaway. Representative Watson yes their personal Watson yes representative Crawford. Representative Crawford. Representative Scott. Tempted to stop No representative cloudy after the Clowney No representative Cooper J. Cooper No representative Richardson register Richardson now representative Collins president of Collins No representative because I look represent McCullough No representative had sent them to the high expected to host the No represent the Milligan. The Millikin yes representative under what. Written Underwood yes representative more. The more yes representative Duffield yes after death feel yes representative under yes under yes representative Pearce. It appears yes read the very representative very yes. The Bill failed. Thank you colleagues. The session go by when we're talking about public safety without I think talking a little bit about what becomes the elephant in the room sometimes and that is guns I am a gun owner for those of you don't know I have a concealed Kerry my family are hunters and I've grown up with guns it's not. It's not the guns that are a problem I was elected because I had some common sense gun reform on my platform. And I I don't feel like I can do my constituents justice without talking a little bit about this bill and I hope and I hope that we can all sit down and talk about some some common sense gun safety. This bill is the the Bill I tried to pass my first term I had several bills for gun safety and Most of you may remember some of the new folks if if you're new you can guess they didn't pass not only did they not pass but I had a couple of senators that wouldn't even listen to. The potential for an interim study. So you know I'm again I'm not expecting any miracles tonight but I do want to talk a little bit about universal background checks and and what this bill does and what it doesn't do. The bill does not address guns but the persons who choose to purchase guns most of the folks I know including many gun owners believe in gun safety and this is this is a bill to protect us from those bad actors to buy and misuse guns for reasons that no responsible gun owner or caring citizen would support and that is to hurt others or or themselves. This bill doesn't affect anyone who is legally allowed to own or carry a firearm it only affects those who we agree shouldn't carry a firearm. The bill won't stop criminals from stealing firearms are getting them off the black market but it will make it more difficult for those who should be allowed to carry firearms to get them. Arkansas has laws that prohibit certain people from owning guns and we've all agreed on those people convicted of felonies that have have not been pardoned or people who've been adjudicated mentally ill violent criminal defendants on bond or people who have been committed involuntarily for any mental institutions they're already prohibited from owning firearms these are common sense regulations that lead to safer outcomes. But under our current system. These people are able to buy and sell firearms without any checks on their activity that it's only after the fact when these folks have been arrested for other crimes that law enforcement is able to discover that someone has a firearm illegally. This bill is an anti gun bill it's is it a bill that limits gun ownership by those are constitutionally allowed to own a gun this is a pro responsibility bill that make sure that the law is being followed. There are many reasons to require background check will let someone who's been convicted of a serious sex offenses to teach our children schools know who they're hiring because of background checks this is responsible policy. Background checks are easy and quick to obtain and the bill allows this bill allows sellers to pass along the fees to buyers at their discretion. Most sellers won't have anything to do except make assembled most sellers won't have anything to do except make a simple request of the crime center or another law enforcement agency. Since the original federal background check law was passed in nineteen ninety four over three million illegal fire arms sales have been stopped by background checked and that's just from the federally licensed dealers. This bill would stop even more by closing the loophole that allows dangerous folks to buy without background checks from unlicensed dealers online or at gun shows this bill does not exclude area or it does exclude sales and transfers to family members per hunting or for self defense. And with that I'd be glad to take any questions members are there any questions. Seeing the questions we have no one signed up to speak for against the bill representative Connor you're recognized to close for your bill thank you madam chair and thank you again committee it you know I represent gun owners who believe as I do and responsible gun ownership. Background checks I think make sense. They use existing systems that are already familiar to legal gun purchasers and they save lives I hope you agree and we'll pass this bill thank you. Members are saying Garner has close for a bill with the wishes of the committee I have a motion to do pass submission to do pass on the floor is there any discussion. Seeing no discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no. Minnows. Let me just tell you don't you don't have to scream I'm listening for the number of voices not the loudness of voices. I got the message for sure. Number I understand that but you always trying to listen for the number of voices are not allowed this. Thank you thank you representative thank you. Represent Richmond. Representative Richmond going to be presenting house bill seventeen eighty four for representative Pilkington so members if you'll go to House Bill seventeen eighty four. Represent Richmond you're recognized to present the bill thank you madam chair may have someone join me at the table yes. Identify yourself for the record and then you'll be able to testify. Hi my name is Debbie Harris. That represent Richmond you're recognized. Thank you madam chair thank you committee for this opportunity represent Pilkington had to leave our emergency I'm not so sure I want to verify that I think that he just the one run this bill. And and but I was asked to go in step in and so what I know about the bill is right there in front of you system in the law concerning concealed handgun to to protect the rights of medical marijuana patients and caregivers to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun and I would like to turn it over to my colleague here. Once again just identify yourself for the recognition you make yes and my name is Terry here S. so this bill is mainly a clarification bill on Amendment ninety eight Amendment ninety eight says that no right and the Arkansas constitution can be infringed anyway when you have a medical marijuana patient card it was intended to apply to gun rights but for some reason there are state forms as far as like when you get a concealed carry permit or apply to get a concealed carry permit where it asks you if you have a patient card and so this basically just helps make all state forms comply with Amendment ninety eight. And I'm happy to answer questions to the best of my ability to represent cloudy you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair this is the there for either of you all those since you're not really the sponsor I understand and do you need a license to carry a concealed handgun Arkansas. Arkansas is an open carry state so you technically do not have to have a concealed Kerry license but do you have anything other. Arkansas is constitutional carry you're not required to have a concealed carry permit in order to carry a weapon state of Arkansas. You're recognized that I guess I'm having a hard time understanding the need for this bill can you explain if you don't need a license to conceal carry and there are still many individuals who do concealed Kerry you know I myself have a concealed Kerry license a lot of people prefer to have that so they have those safeguards in place and if you do get pulled over have a handgun in the car you can show that council K. Lysons so this is basically to help those people who do have a concealed Kerry license or want to get one that had a patient card or those that have a concealed Kerry license and want to get a patient Kerr the currently cannot. Members any other questions Richey Richmond I'm sorry I just like that and I have a a neighbor a former opponent who I really do not care if he gets his or not but he has said that because he's a medical marijuana patient that he cannot get a concealed Kerry and generally speaking he he. I mean I really don't see any other reason why shouldn't be able to get a concealed carry. You're recognized thank you just help me understand what why would he want a concealed Kerry license if he doesn't need a concealed Kerry license to conceal Kerry. I think it's because he's a Democrat and. Anyway I think it's. I think that there is there is confusion out there still and that he's concerned about care in and that he feels more comfortable with a concealed carry represent Cooper you're recognized for a question. Represent regiment would you agree when try to help out represent county here some people want a concealed carry permit because. It allows them to carry in other states that recognize our license in those states to still require a concealed Kerry and because when they purchase from they don't have to do Instagram background check. That is correct and a lot of people want to conceal Kerry for the reciprocal that they can get in a in a different state that requires the concealed carry. President will your recognized for a question. Hi. We have no one else any further questions. We have no one else who signed up to speak for against this bill represent Richmond you're recognized to close for the bill. Thank you committee on clothes and I make a motion to pass the members we have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any questions any discussion of the motion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you have passed the bill. All right members looking at. Representative Scott Richardson. You're recognized go to the end of the table members let's go to House Bill seventeen thirty seven. There is an amendment. Okay hang on just hang on just a moment while we pass out the amendment. Members of the house bill seventeen thirty seven. All right I believe all the amendment the amendment and passed out representative Richardson you're recognized to present the amendments to house bill seventeen thirty seven. Thank you so much Sir madam chair I appreciate the opportunity is a my amendment mom my bill kind of situation we get into a little bit more once we go but essentially this amendment will strike pretty much everything out of the bill from Page two line. Twenty nine. To you Page three line thirty two. And with that I'm happy to answer any questions on the amendment. An explanation of the amendment is there any questions regarding the amendment. Seeing no questions for the will of the committee. Motion to adopt the amendment we have a motion to adopt the amendment any discussion see no discussion all in favor of the motion to adopt the amendment say aye opposed say no the ayes have it you may now present your bill as amended thank you madam chair Scott Richardson district thirteen once again I that this bill from the gun owners of Arkansas organization I really look at the bill but that the information we came up with this text essentially what we're trying to do trying to accomplish with this bill is is really just to provide protection for property owners in the event. Hopefully the. Never happens but in the event that there is a gun related violence that occurs in their shop and they have do not they do not prohibit guns coming in that's all we're trying to do with this bills to make sure they have the protections in place so that if if Evan event does occur they're protected under law. The Amendment struck out a bunch of current bunch of language on the page two and three that was at the request of the governor crew and now they're happy with the bill and In in I guess in support more or less so with that I'm happy to take any questions. Members are there any questions. Okay be a minute to look at the restricted language are the added language. That there's no no addition it's just so I can. I'm sorry ma'am J. Williams on the committee okay you're waiting on me okay. I'm watching my committee. All right members are there any questions. The president has said you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so would it be correct to say that the only remaining part of this after the amendment is this section from on page two line eighteen through twenty seven. that would be correct. and also Page three. Of the existing bill line thirty three through the remaining portion. Which gives exceptions associated with already existing law. In line with our existing all. Follow up. You're recognized okay so going back up to and Page two and beginning at nine eighteen in subsection a it says the property owner is not subject to civil liability for any damage injury or death resulting from a non employee using a loaded firearm on or near the property how is it that it's that we're trying to regulate the goings on at a neighboring property or in someone else's property well guns you long way so I'm assuming if the the gun was fired from the property owner and injured or happen to. It's someone that's in the adjacent property then we'd be looking at a potential liability associated with that. Follow up you're recognized it in. I understand that but in that case. Let's say that somebody at the property. Where the that that gun was shot at was negligently recklessly using the weapon and it resulted in killing a child in the neighboring yard you're saying that that family has no recourse that would not be correct it's not the property owner's fault it's the individual small right the person is leveraging the gun. As always the gun doesn't kill someone you know that the individual whose got the guy does so therefore the repercussions associated with the individual not necessarily someone who walked on my property and pull the trigger and shot an individual that was on another property another follow up and you're recognized right and and I would understand that if we're only talking about invitees but we're talking about employees and there's a principal in the law calls responded superiore which says that often the acts of an employee during the course of the business that they're doing for the employer can be imputed on the employer and if the business with the employer says I'm going to require you to Kerry done so I'm going to allow you to carry a gun to my property while you're doing this work then why would we upset decades of tort law that requires that the responsibility is included on the employer in these types of situations non employees. Non employees. Representing more you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so that example of this if if you'll allow me just so we're clear is if you own a. let's just say a brick and mortar store of any kind and you do not restrict people from concealed carry or carrying a gun on your property your restaurant to brick and mortar store and an altercation ensues you're not going to be held liable for any action they commit correct correct thank you. Members any other questions represent Collins you're recognized for a question. Okay I want to another example up to please has this allows negligence or gross negligence by the property owner so if you set up as a property owner some kind of a firing range and it's right in front of the school and somebody's shooting on the range and issued a kit. Typically you would sue somebody you know of the family would suit the shooter and probably the property owner for such a grossly negligent placement of a place to shoot it and I hope the city as well. Hang on hang on let me finish his question sure who knows or forget the school you know say it's just a place with no kids walk you know that this is very real is not just something that won't happen I probably will happen gross negligence is a pretty you know you're you're really failing to. Exercise reasonable care as a property owner but they would be in use under this and so you know I do I have that right is there something I'm missing and why do we want to protect. Property owners from suit when they're negligent or grossly negligent in this context. Were you seen gross or net like negligent well I'm saying because you sit here and see that it doesn't apply to intentional or reckless conduct intentional is up here reckless is here and then below that is grossly negligent in that region so the the assumption as if it doesn't apply to intentional or reckless conduct and it does apply to lower thresholds like negligent conduct or grossly negligent conduct that's the minnows are kind of the categories of intentionality or you know that standards of conduct. So I'm in fact I'm concerned about that I guess what do we need to protect. When there really is some negligence involved in the property owner. If if you're asking if there is a specific situation. Where a property owner could take advantage of this law I think that we can say that with pretty much all protections for property owners right so so I I'm not saying that this is going to cover things of that nature so I I I don't see where you're saying gross negligence is in the bill and so I'd like to see that first well follow up the recognized so it would apply to all conduct you know except for where you have accepted it except for you said doesn't apply doesn't quite intentional conduct it doesn't apply reckless conduct so then it does apply to other types of conduct I mean that that's. It is pretty common I think a lot of talk about negligence gross negligence recklessness intense now it when we talk about this all the time here. So anyway I I mean I guess I'm trying to get at what is the what is the policy Gold being served if you could articulate that because typically in tort law would represent houses are met if someone acts negligently and cause harm to someone they can be sued for the damages and make that the person whole and that's usually what we want to do unless or some special reason to not have that so what is the special reason here I appreciate the question ma'am chaired it could I bring up the expert with witness to help me with that question. Yes thank you. You need to. If you will please. Identify yourself for the record and then you may answer representative Collins question thank you madam chair my name is ten long as I'm with gun owners of Arkansas some of you are familiar with me up to somebody before. and without getting too in depth one make sure that I understood the question. Represent Collins why don't you repeat your question that think that'll be the best way to go sure typically we allow for liability in cases where someone is negligent or grossly negligent here we are not what is the special reason that we need to have a special exception where there can be no recovery for someone who is negligent resonate with. I think what we're doing here is we're we're protecting the property owner. Not the individual it's actually using the farm and I understand what you're saying wow read the text of the well read it plain plain language reading the property owner is immune from damage for any action that the person on this property is taken he's not immune from damage if he himself is negligent. If that makes sense this doesn't say that it if the property owners himself is negligent in the way he's performing you know caring about his business somehow related to that farm. Then he could still be liable but specifically is not liable for any damages for any action that I and other individual has partaken with the final. On his property. it does not answer questions as well well follow up please you're recognized eat NO I guess that answers it in a sense but it also doesn't really jive with how I read this because why would you need to protect from someone from from liability when they wouldn't otherwise we live so I think the whole I mean I would have to thank the purpose of exendin someone from liabilities if without this law may be liable right I mean otherwise what happens so so there is liability either in the absence of this and that and that liability would be if someone's negligence for gross and and and and now we are saying that they will not be liable for protecting them from that exempting them from that and I just wanna know why Thank you for the question I'm going unanswered you know in in in Arkansas yeah what to keep and bear arms and this is recognizing that a business owner Is allowing someone to exercise our right to keep and bear arms to be able to defend themselves even whether conducting business on their property. and it's also allowing that business owner did not have any liability for the actions of another person which as you correctly pointed out currently right now they do so it's almost loan against the business owner but allow someone to carry a weapon on the property right now this provides protections for them for allowing a citizen of Arkansas to exercise our rights and be responsible for their own safety one month follow up you're recognized but under current law if they are negligent or grossly negligent or something if they are at fault then they can be if they can be sued I guess anybody can be sued but they won't be liable and so current law says the you have to have something you have to have done something wrong that's tort law you have to be negligent or more this will say that even such a person who was not religion is now no longer viable. Just that so I just want to kind of mention that now I'll stop. Any other questions thank you Mr Loggins for being into the table any other questions members. We have no one else in the site there's no one signed up to speak for against the bill representative Richardson you're recognized close for your bill well I don't like we've already stated this is kind of a little simple bill trying to protect our business owners that do allow Kansans to exercise their freedom to carry weapons and so I would appreciate a good vote. Membership per se Richardson his closer's bill whether the wishes of the committee. I have a motion to do pass as amended. Members of a mission to do pass as amended on the table is there any discussion on the motion all in favor please say aye All opposed say no no does have it the motion carries thank you Committee thank you chairman. Members of looking at my agenda I think we're down to Outside of just members of the committee who have bills we are down to represent the flowers and representative Lundstrum so representive flowers your bill is next on the agenda this is house bill ten thirteen members we heard this bill. All along time. And so representing flowers is made amendments. And we were or will. Represent flowers were not going to take testimony we're gonna take a bunch testament we've heard this bill I will let you explain your amendments explain how it's different if there is somebody who wants to come to the table on those. Amendment sure how to fix but we're not going to listen two hours of testimony because we gave you our testimony I'm not going to offer and this is good but I mean I am giving you fair warning because I have heard it yes for sure so you are recognized to present your amendments. Thank you hang on let him get a better college us. All right members I believe the amendments have now been passed out. Receive flowers you're recognized to present your amendments to house bill ten thirteen thank you We have for our state Rep for district sixty five Jefferson County and I am glad to be back it's been some time and I'll just remind you that with all of the testimony that you heard from People who might be affected one in particular. At the end of the day I believe we the Bill failed by two votes including a couple of folks who were on the bill who are concerned and I want to first bank representative Cindy Crawford as well as representative Gazaway who said that they would help on this and they did in a big way And I'm I guess what I'd like to share focuses in that process they were meetings conversations an outreach with Secretary Hagar and his chief counsel it as well as conversations with the sheriff's association we work some more with the prosecutors association and then just a couple of days ago met with Attorney General Tim Griffin and ultimately what we decided to do was work with them on their suggestions which which. Primarily deals with the constitutional concerns that you heard from attorney the Adam Jackson and I can't remember the other gentleman's name who sat at the end of the table and also provided to hand out and what has happened as a result it really ended up being a compromise so what you had before was a bill that as I have told many of you several times mirrored the Drug Court Act the first The first offense. Of law and would have created a separate section and another form through a C. I. C. and there was one bite at that apple. it would have been a ten year period after complete disposition of that nonviolent felon and the law also included a laundry list of exceptions What we did instead after Conversation with the prosecutors and most recently the attorney general's office was. Moved the law under an existing comprehensive or uniform ceiling act removed the dismiss this charge so that's the big that's the big thing that happens here that was at issue that in that you heard from the AG's office about what made it eighty an end run as they said to the governors pardon authority now I just disagree with that we talked the other day and I still do however I do understand where they were coming from and what they also did was provided me with some Supreme Court decisions to demonstrate that in order to cover people. and ensure that they would not be caught by federal law that we did not need to dismiss and discharge language which I acknowledge which is why I was very open to changing the law according to really the way that the prosecutor's office has suggested we do it in the first place and what was suggested that we look at by the AG's office in order for them to be neutral on the bill and withdraw their opposition so that is what we did and that is what you're looking at so what you'll find is this amendment basically strikes the language that was in the bill before but still achieves the same end now the only thing that is different that is instead of the ten year window it it becomes a five year window but it becomes a five year window and I think why the prosecutor's office and the AG's office are now neutral and have withdrawn their opposition is because before the bill required the judge to To provide a an explanation if the petition was denied since it was a one by. But under the comprehensive or uniform ceiling act. The defendant or the felon could come back to the judge after year if the judge denied the petition for any reason so it's a lot more latitude and many of the parameters that were created in the previous language first of all to ensure that we would be dealing with non violent offenders is still there they assured me that everything that existed in this law was still that would still be there under the uniform ceiling act which is why I was willing to make this change in this concession the other thing that I would draw your attention to finally is that we were able because we worked worked and and and made changes and suggestions along the way we were able to secure the support of many members of the Senate on the other side including the chair of the judiciary including the president pro tem so there is very wide and deep support for this bill and I would really finally remind you that it. Our this is not about me I mean a lot of people have complimented me on how hard I worked and I worked this hard because it's for our constituents not just mine of all of our aye aye I even more recently got a call from another constituent from someone on the committee and But was carrying despite and that's one of the things that I think that we have to think about is we're not only trying to address the rights of people who have never committed a felony using a firearm and and in the vein of violence but we're also dealing with people sometimes who are desperate to either protect themselves or to hunt with their families and think that they'll be okay and and they're not so the gentleman who called me the other day had been fine for twenty years and been law abiding and just had a shot guns to go hunting and he said that in and I have no way of knowing by the way what the details are but I do know that this happens he's going to go back to prison for a year. he hasn't committed a crime except for possessing a weapon something that I think many people on this committee have expressed a very strong value for as it relates to second amendment rights so I would stop there and I don't know if you have any questions for me but if attorney Adam Jackson is available he can give more specificity with regard to the changes in the bill but what we can do any of that let's get to the point of you've heard the explanation of the amendment to the bill. Sir any questions or discussion to have a motion to adopt the amendment of a motion to adopt the amendment to the bill now then I think you've done a you've you've explained L. what we have a motion to adopt the amendment any discussion all in favor please say aye opposed say no the amendments have been adopted now The and we're now to the point of your bill as amended and I think you've been giving a fairly detailed discussion of that yet I don't have anything Mr Jackson would you like to go to the end of the table. Identify yourself and then you're recognized. Good evening Adam Jackson assistant Attorney General Lynch facility here twice in one day I think a representative flowers pretty well summed it up when I was here before with the it don't Jacob to the solicitor general's office our issues primarily concerned Constitutional it deal separation of powers what we were latching onto was the. the reinvesting jurisdiction in the circuit court to discharge and dismiss we view that as violating separation of powers in two ways that is essentially you Sir the governor's pardon power and there's case law that firmly put that with the governor's office and no one else can touch it and there's also the issue of when you reinvest restriction after the K. in the the sentences been put into effect there's there's issues with judiciary case law that just simply says that you I want to send this is been put into effect you can't you know re open it absent of some kind of constitutional air like everyone knows proceeding or something of that nature so representative flowers came to us and I really appreciate you working with us and and speak with us on this issue you know we we explained what the constitutional concerns were and that we believed by moving it over at under the comprehensive record sealing act and hearing that process and avoiding this discharge and dismissal language it it would avoid the constitutional concerns we raised and doing that that makes us you know we're not we're not in favor not against we are neutral we are Switzerland. Thank you Mr Jackson I do believe we have colonel thank you in the room. Welcome to the end of the table Sir thank you. Just identify yourself you're recognized yes ma'am come here with the Arkansas state police and secretary department public safety. You think assigned chief of staff department public safety. Thank you signed up to speak against the bill so you're recognized yes ma'am I'd like to join that list for complementary representatives are complimenting representative flowers for the work she's put into this been very accommodating. She's reached out to us on multiple occasions and we've had the opportunity to visit with their we came to the table in opposition this a few weeks ago when it was presented the first time and our position is still there right now just simply because we know that it is very complex to the surprise of no one in the room I'm not an attorney this is over my head so I won't try to get off and the legal weeds of this but that we simply have not had time to review the bill we've we saw a screenshot of it this afternoon just but just to have not had a chance to review it there's a few things in the bill we know Substantively that we're you know me a little bit concerned about the the fact that of your offenses such as trafficking narcotics would not be on that exemption to apply also commercial burglary things like that the the time period being reduced from ten years to five years there are things that you know we know of just as a quick glance through it for the most part is the fact we've not been able to get off in the weeds and and and county with the due diligence it deserves. Thank you. Thank you this is obviously a soldier name for the record I'm sorry Hugh Finkelstein sorry about that this obviously is an important bill it needs to be given due consideration and this is an overhaul from of one type of a bill which is basically a pardon to a bill that deals with ceiling and restoring rights I think that it. Going down from a ten year waiting period two and five year waiting period is a concern especially when in the original bill and all. The legislative intent of the original bill said criminologist studying recidivism has found that fell on the phones usually have to stay out of trouble for about a decade before the risk of committing a crime equals that of other people with no record. That was in the original filing of this bill I think it's the least there's consideration that without any. With without any reason it was just dropped from ten five years I think that that gives me concern as to why this should happen. Thank you. Members any questions. Thank you thank you for coming to the end of the table we have no one else represent the flowers you're recognized to close for your bill. So normally I would be mad but Secretary Hey guys my new best friend. So but I I do appreciate the remarks and I do understand that The department of public safety may not of had an opportunity to look at it at length it's actually a much shorter bill and it actually does exactly the same thing and while secretary Hey I mentioned that is complex it is complex but we have you all heard two hours of testimony and to have had access to the bill and the the many many amendments that we have made to address concerns over really almost two months so And also secretary mentioned that he's not an attorney but you just heard from an attorney from the state's attorney for the state of Arkansas who indicated that the concerns and the issues that were addressed around the constitutionality were addressed to the point where they withdrew their opposition So the trafficking of narcotics and commercial burglary Work addressed or word defined in the last bill this is it a bill to address people and really restore the second amendment rights of people who are non vital been convicted of non violent offenses. that was the case before that is still the case and as far as the five year period I think that the thing that we have to remember is that this would be held. Based upon this would be determined based upon the consideration of a judge if that person came back after a second five year waiting period then you have the ten year and actually be Levin because there's a one year the period of time in which in between those waiting periods. as it relates to the data that I shared last time and what was in the bill I think that was a good point to make something that I share with the committee before and consideration was. If someone has a. Sorry if someone has a five year but say probation or they do five years in prison and then have five years parole all of that is still considered in terms of good behavior once you start talking about parole and probation. Most felonies you're gonna see a five year probationary period whether you do time in prison or not and then with another five years of good behavior you still have the ten years so when I was explaining the data and talking about the time frame. It's it was far and away above the the ten year period was my point even with this bill you would still have ten years of good behavior from the person and again you would still have a very strict AT and and broad latitude of a judge to make decisions who would still hear from the prosecutor. He would still be able to hear from concerned sheriff's officers and by the way I didn't mention and I'll close with this the sheriff's association who were also very vehement in opposition withdrew their opposition so I can share with you and remind you as I stated before that no gun bill in the state of Arkansas has been presented and the folks who testified last time against this bill. Didn't testify against those bills. I would be comfortable in stating that this might be the first good bill of this magnitude of this nature where you did not hear the level of opposition. That you have heard in the past and again this is for our people this is for our constituents this is not about me and how hard I've worked we all work hard and I'm supposed to work hard about something this complex is this important but I've I will take you back to the fact that most people in this body. Express one on. The importance of the second amendment rights of your constituents. And we are here today to consider restoring those rights for law abiding citizens who paid their debt to society and who never ever used a weapon or violence in the commission of the kicked the the felony that they were convicted with. So once again I just ask you to remember our people remember who we work for and please take into consideration that we have very strong and broad support on the Senate side so this is not just to pass it out of committee this bill can pass. Out of the house and the Senate off the floors and work for our people so with that I will close madam chair thank you members represented flowers is cause for her bill with the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass as amended on the floor is there any discussion of the motion. Seeing that represent Richardson you're recognized for discussion on the motion thank you madam chair of colleagues I would just. I mean we passed several bills this this evening with regards to two guys and I will tell you this is probably one of the most important ones that I've I have a my community of we've got constituents who who made some bad choices in the past and it really live still alive since they've corrected that and still don't have the opportunity to protect themselves out with their kids or so forth wall. Representative flowers has worked hard on this bill is not often that we see the AG come out against the bill and then come back and and be neutral as well as some other law enforcement agencies I think it's a good bill I think it benefits my constituents and other constituents of Arkansas and I'll be voting yes and I urge you guys to do Senate. Any other discussion. Seeing no further discussion we have a motion on the floor all in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill as amended. Thank you Committee. You can make your way to the table but as you're making your way the table let me call house bill seventeen sixty nine is represented McNair anywhere. House Bill seventeen sixty nine. Okay not seeing here. Members if you'll turn your attention to. House Bill. Fifteen oh one madam thank you I couldn't find it on my sheet so members if you'll turn that house bill will be ready to take up representive Lundstrum house bill fifteen seventy seven you're recognized of. You're recognized yes ma'am. colleagues is the statute of limitations we discuss this briefly last time I do have to subject matter experts with me to answer any questions because I did stumble a little bit last time so I make it very clear this is about statue limitations for rape this is without a rape kit and this is allowing the prosecutors to have prosecutorial discretion and in Arkansas right now the statue limitations is six years this would be going forward with an unlimited statue limitations and I want to give you just a little background quickly and the other fifty states we have approximately thirty actually thirty states that have no statute of limitation with the number one state being Iowa which has four rapes per one hundred thousand Arkansas is the second from the bottom of worst states in the country with Alaska beating us we are number forty nine and our population Iowa is three point one million people and they are the best state of the state the state for rape victims I only have four rapes per one hundred thousand Arkansas has three million people in the state and we are at the bottom of the list we are very and say state unfortunately for a black female zero two and a half times more likely to be raped and if you're in the LGBTQ community you're a fifty percent chance of being raped so it's a pretty serious crime other than murder I have bought wanted subject matter with witness with Manafort JD if you would identify yourself for the record Julie occurred. Julie occurred I'm retired six consecutive from the north little rock police department in Little Rock with twenty years and sex crimes domestic violence and child abuse. One of the things I want to focus on is there a lot of other types of evidence besides just DNA when a prosecutor has to look at a lot of different types of evidence first of all with child victims we have no statute of limitations and a child's testimony is sometimes all the prosecutor needs to get a conviction. That is still the case with a adult victim after six years the crime doesn't go away and I would like for represent skews me detective F. Packard. To give examples of what that might be. And also in my in my research that this the current statute of limitations was put into law in nineteen seventy five originally when when law was fit to to Penn in nineteen forty seven capital offenses did not have any US statute of limitations and rate actually fell under that because it was punishable by death. So the the reason that I found for statute of limitations was that evidence will become stale lost or may deteriorate. And that was probably true in nineteen seventy five we have things in place now to preserve evidence there's all kinds of technology out there computers people saved messages text messages Facebook all of those things are available now during during up. Investigation one of the other reasons well as witnesses may move or die In my experience there's rarely any witnesses to the actual rate of of an adult there's the victim and if the victim is passed away the prosecutors are not going to to file charges on that. The other things that I found with memories fade we know now that that that's not true there's a lot of studies being done with trauma in the brain and that the child victims are able to come back and recount what it happened to them adult victims can do that as well. The other fear was false accusations will come out as was explained last time by attorney Rosenzweig this was not going to be retroactive this is not something that's going to be able to go back where someone can go back twenty years it would extend to people that we're currently under the statute of limitations so if they were assaulted in it this past and went into effect on January first twenty twenty four and I need to correct my email it then it would only go back to victims that were assaulted after January first of twenty eighteen and it would it would extended their statute of limitations but it's not going to go back further than that. in my experience in Pulaski County I don't know how it is in other account the counties but with the false accusations if there's a delayed report we and we conduct a full investigation we typed up the affidavit give that to the prosecutor The prosecutor has the final decision on whether or not they're going to sign an approved affidavit. And if they do need more information they request what's called the file review and we put everything together in the file they get the filing gets passed around to for the for prosecutors and then they make a determination from there. And it's basically up to the prosecutor's office. So there are several reasons but the and they might not have been collected. So the suspect may want a condom identity is hard harder to detect if the suspect has had a vasectomy the suspect did not **** there was no penile vaginal penetration the suspect may have used a different body part to rate the victim with a hand which was a digital assault and suspect maybe use an object suspect may have assaulted the victim or only which was the case back in two thousand seventeen we have the serial rapist running around North Little Rock assaulting women he was assaulting them now and that's the one of the reasons it took us so long to find him because the DNA was lacking. the suspect was completely unknown wear a mask attacked under the cover of darkness what hoodie over his face wait this is known but isn't such as procedures position in the community that the victim failed so that she will not be believed. I was working at case on a minister and I had for victims and after it hit the press I had twelve victims come forward twelve adults women big downs that he had rate that I couldn't press charges on him for those cases. I still took their testimony still took their their witness statements and put it in the case file so that the prosecutors would know what he had been doing for the past twelve years. victims did not seek medical attention with their in the required ninety six hours that's what it set out now to go get a medical forensic exam. ends up. When I'm teaching the recruits I'm also an instructor I haven't think back to health class and. Remember what their teacher told them about if they are intimate with a partner and their female partner runs and jumps in the shower that she might not get pregnant. And they had a laugh about that they realize that's not how the body works and that's not how DNA works in DNA is not just going to wash off someone while they're in the shower which leads me to the other reason that DNA might not be collected and we don't want to think about that and while I am an instructor cross Arkansas this is one of the things that I'm trying to address in in different agencies so. over my twenty years sometimes patrol officers have told the victim that they've had a shower and they can't collect evidence I've had a bill it's personnel telling victims that because she had wiped herself. That she didn't need to go to the hospital to have a kit done it was unknown assailant who was later identified as a level for sex offender. Which is the worst I've already heard about level force today. a doctor tell the rape victim that came into the hospital within the time I hope this never happens to you again but if it does be sure not to take a shower because you lost all the evidence away refuse to do a cat the nurse found out that a fourteen year old had taken a shower after she'd already open the rape kit and she said I guess this is a very important and three the great kid in the trash so these are just some of the a personal examples on cases that I've worked with and reasons that DNA was not collected And at the end of a my time in north little rock I was going through some old reports I had a case coming up. On it was that unknown male I ended up finding who he was Joe the black Cadillac tell the victim you can call me kilo overweight bald headed I we've had court coming up in about three weeks as I was going through those old reports I found to reports from twenty fifteen. The bald headed black man in a white Cadillac that lived in the rose city area and same circumstances raping kidnapping one of the cases had DNA on it and so I was able to find the victim sure photograph she got a positive identification and they were able to go forward on that case and file charges against him extra charges before we went to court on the other case the other case didn't have DNA. So there wouldn't be anything that they could do as far as filing charges on the other case. And so that was that was tough. The the defendant because we had the two cases instead of the one case ended up pleading guilty and we didn't even have to go to trial. All right thank you I represent guess what you have. Question of represent Lundstrum. Thank you madam chair I guess. You know one of the issues is. This appears to me to be the same bill that we had last time is that right yes this is correct so it's not changed anyway this act okay. So with respect to the statute of limitations I mean you know that we cover this last time just to be clear the state of Arkansas eliminated the statue imitations for rape involving children up to age twenty eight yes that's correct okay. my understanding is there is no statute of limitations for a for Rapert and that is one reason I ask Mr Cooper to come to to the table because I want to make sure I am not as familiar with the line I didn't want to overstep or make any mistakes and I want to make sure because it's somewhat of a Rubik's cube and I want to make sure I'm correct Mr Cooper could you help. To state your name for the record. Quickly we are we are at the end I think of my committees thank you madam chair right across the term general. So the question is this I mean we eliminated the statute of limitations in Arkansas for rape of a minor in a previous session or two ago did we not that's correct representative okay and then we've also eliminated the statue imitations for rape in the event that there is DNA evidence that's later discovered that would. link someone to the crime is that correct yes Sir that's also correct okay. And follows. Okay and so you know once again I mean this. What we come back on this bill and you know I'll look at what some other states have done and you're right there are some other states that just completely eliminated. Statue of limitations for rape entirely you know I think. We hear that argument around here a lot just you know other states have done this or that but there are some other states for instance that require that a if you're talking about an unknown offender that at least a report to be made to law enforcement first the kind of tolls the statute of limitations are you aware of that. State where there are some that yes but my my question would be is if you can take a statement from a child up to twenty eight years and that suffices. Why after six years do we tolerate victim sorry too bad so sad What why are we not trusting the prosecutors did have prosecutorial discretion to decide when there is when there are other types of evidence. Any other questions. Representative Scott you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair I think I'm concerned about I forgot your name because I walked in and walked out. I think I'm concerned about What can we do to educate people that are interacting with potential rape victims it seems like it was so many incidents in your work history where people miss handle situations where women have been raped and that's a that's a big concern to me I'm not against this bill but that would that raise the bigger concern to me and it seems like it's happening on various occasions in various events in various. So I try to be involved as much as is possible I with that former chair of the council on sexual assault for Pulaski County one of the things that we were focusing on was education for law enforcement which I provide across the state on a regular basis to new recruits but of course the new recruits go back and get taught by that senior officers so we kinda just have to. You know what the other guard retire as far as that goes but the and the the medical too so one of the things that we did for an kind of an education piece was we created a label for the back of the rape kits to going the every unused rape kit to actually go into that you know was the kid anonymous or not anonymous which I don't know if you all know that but if you're over eighteen and you are have been raped you can go to a hospital without filing a police report and get an anonymous kit done however there's nothing in place to say what happens to those kids which is the next part of this bill was to address the issue with anonymous kids some hospitals hang on to and I have been called to pick up several kids because they had the big then lived in North Little Rock it didn't say where the assault happens so issues like that and we we tried to put another piece on there about calling you know that the agency with jurisdiction to pick up the kids and things like that but that was one of the things also that we wanted to address across the board is this lack of of education in the community about rape and sexual assault thank you represent company you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair. I read this bill but I'm too tired to go back and read it again so you can help me. I thought representative Lundstrum when we. When we did this that it was it's not going to be a she said he said it's going to be that there is a police report and a rape kit. Now I'm understanding that there doesn't have to be a police report though yes okay okay hang on just want to make clear or because it that the water's getting real money here limit let me be very clear okay this is eliminating the statute of limits of the statue limitations. But in order to prosecute the case you have to go to the police they have to decide whether or not to prosecute this call prosecuted prosecutorial discretion you can't just make it up that a whole cloth they have to put together a case we're not you can't just make these things up For a child in a child in this house situation. They have to interview the child they have to do all the things a prosecutor has to do we have to trust them to do their job we eliminated it for children we can eliminate this for adults we're talking about statute limitation we're not talking about removing any of the things that they do and their course of business okay represent corporate you're recognized for a follow up thank you just because we're all really tired let me say this one more time and you say yes or no that'll help me okay okay. There is no way. You know and we thought about this before with the Cavenaugh case. There is no way that stuff like that will happen this is. All right kid that a police officer has been involved there's been a report may they just don't file charges then but then when they have their head on straight then years later they can go back and get the police report and the rape kit and then they can press charges there is not always a rape kit you and for example in twenty twenty one there were eighty five sexual assaults with an object there's no DNA there's not always a white kid sometimes rate rapes happen in the victims are so traumatised they don't report until five six seven years later and by then it's too late to there's the statue of limitations is done and the prosecutors have no recourse except to look them in the eye and say I'm sorry. Statue of limitations has run out. So we tie their hands. We're the ones that make the laws and the prosecutors prosecute they were trying their hands all this bill is trying to do is say permit the statue limitations they'll have to decide whether or not to prosecute that's what they do. Represent Collins you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so to try to clarify a representative Crawford question again there is no requirement for a rape kit there is no requirement for police report this removes the statute of limitations in all cases including he said she said. For all time right. First of all there's not a requirement for make it with the child's case I'm sorry can I please get a as well and that is correct that is correct okay I wasn't trying to be confusing thank you represent Gazaway you're recognized for a question well I think that that probably answered my. My question so I I can. Follow up later and to follow up to represent because what we did before it gets. I'm I'm sorry that's true I know none we're getting late we don't banter back and forth in a surprise in. You're recognized for a question represent yes ma'am sure we covered this during the last during but Mister Cooper. Former prosecutor many years knows very well I believe so I just want to confirm. To sustain a conviction on rape the Supreme Court has made it clear that all that is required is for the jury to believe the testimony of a rape victim there's not there's not a requirement that there be forensic evidence there's no requirement that there be DNA there's not a requirement that there be Medical evidence there's not there's not a requirement of any cooperation at all. Just one person's word standing alone is sufficient according to the Supreme Court to sustain a conviction for rape isn't that right. That's correct represented as long as the jury finds beyond a reasonable doubt based on that testimony then that's correct that would that would. Bring a conviction right thank you. Any other questions. Seeing no further questions representative question you're recognized close for your bill thank you I think representative Gazaway just helped me with my clothes and he's right the Supreme Court has said a witness testimony should suffice the only problem is after six years if you're an adult that doesn't work because the state of Arkansas says after six years it doesn't matter in the state of Arkansas it ten years we have arson gets a longer statue limitations then right. That's wrong we send a message to the rapist after six years you don't have to look over your shoulder the state of Arkansas you can keep right on going but the rape victims will continue to look over their shoulder what kind of message does that send that's the wrong message to send anybody we can do better in the state of Arkansas we have great prosecution we have great law enforcement we need to trust them to do their jobs we need to send the message to the victims that we hear you and we need to send a message message of the rapists that we will get to you and we will come after you you need to be looking over your shoulder with that I would ask for a good vote represent Lundstrum is cause for her bill is there a was the will of the committee. Seeing no motion we have represented a motion to pass with a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion of the motion representative Gazaway you're recognized for discussion on the motion thank you madam chair and I agree with representative Lundstrum that we do have great prosecutors in this state I was one of is privileged to be one of them for many years and I handled many many rape cases sexual assault cases over the course of those years. And and very familiar with how this process works I'm very familiar with representing victims who've been through traumatic experiences many of them children of sat with the families of sat with victims held their hands walked into the court room. is no one can say that I have not. Represent the best interest of victims over the years I have. That's not. Really what's at issue here the issue is the public policy now when the legislature this is a different role. And the issue is the public policy of whether or not we should completely entirely eliminate the statute of limitations so that a person going forward. That a person can make an allegation of rape. that could result in a conviction and they would be able to make that in perpetuity and two representative Crawford's question she brought up the Cavanaugh case I think that's a perfect example I mean I think that could that very clearly illustrates exactly the type of issue that we're talking about here there is not a requirement and. Under the under this bill the way it's written there is not a requirement to someone first make a report to law enforcement that a rape occurred if they don't know who the offender is. there's not a requirement that a police report be put filed that report be made the law enforcement within a certain period of time that would hold the statute of limitations it's just in perpetuity at any point. Someone brings an allegation that they were raped at some point in the past could be twenty thirty forty fifty years down the road. And a case could theoretically be brought and if believed by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt could result in someone being convicted of the offence of rape as Mister Cooper testified to. For me that that's just a bridge too far in a it's a bridge too far for other states some states Rick not all state some states have eliminated the statute of limitations some some states and not some states require and we have by the way for for minors the the event occurred while you're reminder there is no statute of limitations if the if there's DNA evidence is discovered after the fact then there's no there's no statute of limitations but you know there are other states that require that at least a police report be filed there are other states that have limits of twenty years or various other the numbers of years she which she could've brought a bill like that back we've already rejected this bill once she got a brother bill backed that. No required a police report she cut could have bought a bill backed it was twenty or thirty years I think people would have been more receptive that she brought the exact same bill back does not require anything and it would extend the statute of limitations going forward in perpetuity for he said she said cases and the question before us today is whether or not that's the public policy we should adopt the state of Arkansas is not whether you support victims or whether you don't I've got a professional record of supporting victims not I'll always stand up for victims of rape the question is from a public policy standpoint whether we should extend the statue imitations on he said she said cases in perpetuity other states haven't. And I think it's fair if we choose not to and we shouldn't be shamed for not doing it and so with that I'll be voting no and encourage you to vote no as well. Members any other discussion on the motion. We have a motion on the floor to pass all in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no. The nose habit the bills failed thank you colleagues I appreciate your time. Members of looking at my agenda we have covered. Everybody who's not in this committee. So we're going to start back up at the top but I tell you what I think we're going to be like kindergarten we're going to have a five minute recess whereby you stand up and stretch and then we're going to take the members of this committee their bills and then we'll be three so we're in recess for five minutes. All right members. All right. Members if we can get back to the table we're going to get started. Okay members if we can get back to the table. We're going to begin let's get back. All right members. Judiciary is now back in session members we're gonna start at the top of our agenda but kind of in a different way I'm going to go ahead and take up my concurrence and then we're going to take up Representative Duffield. And then I think everything after that would be representative Gazaway. So members let's turn to. House Bill fifteen twenty two. House Bill fifteen twenty two. So if you will take that I'll ask representative berry to take over the chair. Mr William their value so for the record and. This is with the house bill fifteen twenty two and you were made for a thank you members Carol Dalby a state representative district one hundred. Members this is the salary of the various District Court personnel got down to the Senate and we knew this going down there there were two counties that needed to make some changes those changes were made on the Senate in and I would have and this is to concur in the Senate amendment shall be happy to answer any questions. Are there any questions to the committee. Say no questions. You can close for your bill I'm closed and make a motion to concur in this and the Senate amendments are a motion been made all those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed. Motion carried to the thank you have a cute **** your bill thank you Mr chair thank you members of the committee. Mr Duffield you have. What Bill sixteen eighty three is that correct yes Sir you may identify yourself for the record and you may personally yes Sir mat hang in there is an amendment yes ma'am. The Amendment seven passed out representative who will be recognized to present your amendments the yes ma'am thank you madam chair thank you Committee just a few minor language amendments here from BLR that you have before you like to make a motion to adopt those amendments. The members we have a motion that the amendments on the floor any discussion saying no discussion all in favor docked in the minutes please say aye. Is have it you know may present your bill as amended yes ma'am thank you House Committee a rainy day house bill sixteen eighty three the purpose of this bill is to clarify the since two thousand thirteen Arkansas has been recognized as a permit was getting State. The Arkansas state police is neutral on this bill and I believe that's important because the concealed carry permits the fees with those go to the Arkansas state police of the fact that a neutral tales says a lot about this this passed through the Senate Committee today with no opposition we've got lieutenant governor Rutledge okay we'll hang on yes ma'am this is a House bill you're not presenting a Senate bill I've got house bill so yes yes ma'am I just made represent it I'm sorry it can't it can't I'm sorry I yes it is passed to the Senate I wanna make sure we have the right bill yes ma'am sixteen eighty three okay thank you. Late I'm sorry apologize lieutenant governor religious said that legislators need to clear clarify this in black and white and plays jim the purpose of this bill is as you've seen throughout the session we've had several piece of legislation come through that discuss consists concealed carry permits and to allow that for certain entities certain situations and effect of their may be some but this bill just clarifies for the purpose of everyone including legislators here that that that that is not needed in the State of Arkansas that a concealed carry permit is not needed and this is to clarify that that that that's not the case and that we are a permit was scary State. The representative. You're recognized for a question thank you madam chair representative of you keep saying clarifies if it's established OB but with unfortunately but it's established by the Arkansas is a permanent state yes ma'am I believe many would we get to court cases Taff Taff road Arkansan also Petrie verses Arkansas and those were cases where there were there were some gentleman that we're carrying on them and I had some instances take place one was at a night club and they had the weapon on them and they did not have a concealed carry permit and that was found to be but they were not breaking the law by Kevin that weapon on. At five yes ma'am you're recognized. Yeah I know that that's the case that we are a site and I just I I also know that there is much confusion including among the law enforcement community as recently as minutes ago about whether Arkansas is in fact a constitutional carry states I just want to put on the record that that is in fact when we are so I appreciate the attempt to clarify I'm sure unfortunately actually right clarification but I wanna make sure that we know that under current Arkansas right is certainly not establish that we are a permit this state but my follow up question is that this subchapter does not require a person to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun in order to carry a concealed handgun in this state this subchapter that's referenced on line thirty four there is subchapter three subchapter three. Contains all of the language about enhanced concealed carry so this bill in front of us as I see it This bill in front of us as I see it. Completely does away with all of our enhanced concealed carry your clients which means where someone is allowed to carry or not carry a concealed weapon without any license changes need enhanced concealed carry license to carry in a courthouse you can enhance conceal carry license to carry in the state capital you didn't have a concealed Kerry to carry on public university grounds does not go away with this bill because the way that I read it everything in this subchapter is now meant to say you don't need any license yes ma'am chair may bring an expert so we can answer the question yes ma'am no it's my understanding those entities can still required that this just clarifies it as a whole was the state that we are permit less carry. Represent County. I appreciated that the understanding that the language says this subchapter does not require a person to obtain a license. All of what I just said is in this subchapter so every licensing. Process laid out as in hand KA is in this subchapter is no longer required to Kerry yes this is just a clarification of how it is this is not going to change any of those pre existing lawsuit in place in state or situations it's not gonna change it. Represent Collins recognized for a question. Committee chair so you know I think you said that that that the law is clear we'll we're all set as a paramilitary state and in fact we have resolved in the past that we are HR ten thirteen by Brandt Smith two thousand nineteen said that the court of appeals gave judicial clarity in the phone that we're constitutional carry state with no permit required to carry handgun either a concealer concealed so what are we doing with this bill whether any bill what we doing here can we just do another resolution celebrating the the facts as they are. Will. I appreciate the representative called this is just again to clarify this in black and white in the form of the bill and put it down and and so that it's clear to the legislators they're confused and anyone in the state that may be confused that we are in fact a permit was care state follow up you're recognized to defeat that by doing a second duplicative law that says the same thing that is already a law that we might be in fact confusing things because usually we only do laws when they're not currently the law I think the fact that people are still confused is that we need to do this to try to further get away from the confusion tax represent the color you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair I believe you made reference to the concealed Kerry fee going to the state police do you have any sense of how much money the state police will lease no ma'am I don't but we have discussed with the state police and they have been neutral on this bill they're not opposed. Members any other questions. Representative Crawford you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair you. Representative photo would you agree that. When someone. It is picked up for whatever reason and they have a concealing Kerry without the permit. That it has kind of been my understanding in the past that it's up to the judge to go in front of because he is really not sure the Arkansas law and that this would be an give them a tool in their toolbox yes ma'am I agree that's correct thank you members any other questions representive cloudy you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair and I'm sorry I'm just stuck on this representative I thought and maybe we're just going to go around in circles that I cannot read this in any other way than that does away with enhanced carry license so can I just ask you why it is that you say that it doesn't enhance carry licenses in this subchapter this bill says this subchapter does not require a license can you please just reconcile those things for me well it's it's my understanding the way this bill was written issues a clarification bill it's not going to change any of the pre existing concealed carry permit Tatian Center in place in required file that you're recognized. But it does I guess is what I'm saying to you this really changes the entire subchapter because it says this subchapter does not require a license and so maybe your position is that you don't need an enhanced carry license under current Arkansas but if that's the case and I'm not sure why we have metal detectors in front of a capital because anybody could conceal carry with it without a license we have those because you need an enhanced concealed carry license to carry a weapon concealed in the capital if that is current law this subchapter does change at and I just want to make sure that at least you understand that that is in fact what's happening here and if if there's something that I'm missing besides the fact you think this is just clarifying language I really would love to know that I just can't understand your argument so sure there anything else you could help me no this is I still see this is classifications not to change the situation here to Capitol or anywhere else like that. Members any other questions we do have to individuals who have signed up to speak for the bill. Mr Gerry a person you're recognized if you'll speak for the bill. Okay Mr okay. Tim Loggins signed up to speak for the bill. Mr logon to fuel a dinner five yourself then you're recognized to make your statement. Thank you madam chair my name is Tim Loggains I'm with gun owners of a Arkansas. I appreciate representative on field running this bill I believe it is much needed because there is a lot of confusion being put out even though we have to appellate level cases tabby Montgomery County and picture be Arkansas were Baltimore can consider without a permit individually their cases were thrown out as you all are aware of the appellate level decisions carries the weight of the Supreme Court so we have a in essence Arkansas Supreme Court referencing that possessing a weapon without a permit is lawful activity so we've established it on a case level. but we still have people saying any department how do I know what were some of the bills that we from the session some lawmakers have indicated maybe any apartment maybe don't I believe this law was necessary representative County appreciate your question for a representative Dunn field and. I believe he is correct in his assessment that this subsection that is covering is only call talking about the concealed handgun carry license not the enhanced a concealed Herrick concealed Kerry hang a licensed but if I'm incorrect which I'm not willing to stipulate but but if I was an appeasing correct we still have possibly three one nineteen plus any three one twenty two which is going to places so even if we did away with the enhanced carry statute by this bill which I do not believe we have those places would still be prohibited you still couldn't hang on university still concur in the capital now we can argue that maybe those lawmakers that have the announced that John might be upset because you all might not be able to carry if what representative council saying is true. But the general public would still be prohibited from these poor we have to places if if that answers your question. You're recognized for a question thank you it doesn't because and I I appreciate that you're not willing to stipulate the Iran I appreciate that commitment I am the same way At least income. I am but it is true that this deals with Arkansas code title five chapter seventy subchapter three that is just simply where the enhanced Kerry I mean that just is where it is in the in the code is in that subchapter it does impact that and But I don't know what else to say other than this says that this does away with the requirement under that subchapter of carrying a license I mean of obtaining a license. And I appreciate that and and you know we're both part ended up by Senator three three twenty two as you indicated is found in five seven three three one et seq which three twenty two is the enhanced Kerry correct but even if you all correction and does away with the enhanced which I do not believe it does and and I will I will depart anyone else. Those places would still be prohibited from carrying a weapon permit was Kerry doesn't change the places you can carry. college universities are still prohibited schools are still prohibited carrying in public buildings knowingly with a loaded weapon is still prohibited absent be on a journey and in a vehicle which is is the low now this doesn't change any of that where you can carry now I understand and I appreciate your argument about will this effect enhance Kerry I'm I'm with representative Dunn field and in opposition as it does not but if it did we're not allowing people to K. in new places well what we're saying is that what case law as stated what I mean you do a simple Google search you look at Giffords and you look at that at. Not the most right wing. Searches on Google and they include Arkansas is one of the twenty five permit less carry states No permit required to carry a weapon concealed or openly this is addressing that confusion and and people saying they don't know what the status of the law is that was the intent and the purpose and I believe the effect represent Collins recognized for a question. Given that the conversation I mean it really does seem like we're probably gonna see a reduction in in fee revenue to state police here I mean this and I think we should have a fiscal impact on this bill given that. Now we cut no. Senate fiscal impact statement for fiscal impact okay we have a fiscal impact statement that being requested which will stop the bill but we can certainly continue questions and responses. Any other questions. Seeing no further questions that represent Duffield your your bill will be put on hold until we get the physical impact statement. All right members. Represent Gazaway. First the first thing we're going to take up will be house bill fourteen twenty seven which is a concur and Senate Amendment number one so represent Gazaway you're recognized to present house bill fourteen twenty seven for the purposes of concurring in Senate Amendment number one. You're recognized thank you madam chair Ali g's house bill fourteen twenty seven was the bill that related to the code revise or this came from the bill Legislative Research Kotor visor is employed by the bureau of legislative research we are actually honored been Sanderson today you might recall the House for he's been the code revise or is now retiring. And. The The bureau now hires the code revisor and that's part of what we clarified in the bill that we passed but so you have the code revisor who works for the bureau and then you have the code revision commission code revision commission is separate and apart from the bureau and there has been some question as to how much input the commission should have into the hiring and firing of the code revisor and so that got brought up in the Senate and basically we struck the language that. That the director of the bureau in this release now course you know these who knows who this will be the future the director the bureau in this case to be Marty would have to seek the advice of the code revision commission before employing the code revise or that was stricken or terminating employment we just simply say. That if the coated does is terminated then the director the bureau has to come to the commission explained why. And that's given the bureau more power but technically because the code visor is employed by the bureau it's really more appropriate for them to handle their own business as opposed to making that a commission decision it does take away some power from the commission but I think everybody in the commission was fined for that I feel like I'm talking this death over something the people really don't care that much about so with that happy take any questions seeing no questions your. Recognized to close and I'm close for the bill and would make a motion to pass making a motion to Senate Amendment number one yes members we have a motion to concurrence in Amendment number one any discussion saying no discussion all in favor please say aye any opposed say no the ayes have it we have concurred all right members what's moved back to house bill sixteen sixty five that's where we left off today House Bill sixteen sixty five this is the one that was question whether there needed to be an amendment or not and so represent guess what you're recognized to explain where you are on the bill madam chair I'm gonna pull it down put on the deferred list all right members house bill sixteen sixty five is going to deferred. The next bill that we have represented Gazaway is house bill seventeen fifty eight. Yes. You're recognized thank you madam chair of this Is a bill that relates to the criminal offense of commercial burglary. And what we do here is we create. and enhancement for someone who commits commercial burglary when the structure involved is a pharmacy and it would add an additional term of imprisonment of five years for someone who would commit commercial burglary with respect to a pharmacy now you may say why should we. Carve out or single out pharmacies for some additional protection. And. If you talked with the. Pharmacists from around the state and John Benson from the Arkansas pharmacists association. Break ins and robberies on Iran and burglaries of pharmacies I'm sorry to have an amendment on this bill it passing out the sentencing commission thank you you don't have an amendment which passing out that is this bill. Thirty seven on a Thursday night would probably everybody else is gone home we're up here when we have amendment so this great day for us to the judiciary I'm sorry I couldn't resist the spare. So. And let me I want to give you have correct statistics on this. So it what I want is an explanation of the bill again you may ask why we're kind of carving up pharmacies of the seven hundred fifty pharmacies in Arkansas there have been forty to sixty burglaries this is from double wall for the Arkansas farmers association forty to sixty burglaries a year over the past ten years the pharmacies and the point being is they keep a very precious commodity FOR some people inside those pharmacies which are drugs. And. This pharmacies become a place where the. you know the people will come in at gun point demand the pharmacist give on drugs I mean it's almost the equivalent of a bank And they they have seen again This real increase in people who have been burglarizing a pharmacies and so because of that we're adding an additional enhancement on there in part to send a message and impart to kind of address the issue so that's what the bill does have been answering questions. City Pritchard you're recognized for a question thank you ma'am check you caught my attention when use is equivalent to a bank so is this. Penalty the same as robbing a bank. We help you bank I think you're going federal is typically think that bank robberies typically Federal court deals but But the if you have a bank you you're looking at some pretty serious time so. Members any other questions represent company recognized thank you madam chair you I don't see it in the bill so I'm sure it's not here but I'm just asking this will not go retroactive to people who are already in prison who they robbed a pharmacy a few years ago and get five extra years because that has happened since we've been here and other cases on robbery so I just wanna make sure of that. Yeah that's a good question and no it will not if this will only be effective going forward and in order for the enhancement to apply you know we specifically saying the bill about the prosecutor noting that they're seeking enhancement on the information when they file it so to put everyone on notice that they'll be seeking an infer seeking enhancement but only be going forward one affect anyone who's up who's has a pending case or is already been sentenced. Members any other questions we do have an individual who is signed up to speak against the bill Mr Rosenzweig. All. Okay thank you. We have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill represent Gazaway you're recognized close for your bill thank you madam chair I'm sure that the pharmacist around the state would very much appreciate this. Bill so with that close to make a motion to pass members who have a motion to do pass on the floor is hearing a discussion of the motion. Seeing no discussion all in favor of bills of favour of the motion please say aye any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you have passed your bill. Members what drop down now to House bills seventeen ninety house bill seventeen ninety. Represent Gazaway you're recognized to present house bill seventeen ninety there is a sentencing commission. Report on that so let's get that out. In a pass out some the sentencing commission. Hi I believe the sentencing commission report is now. Before shall take just a little quick. Look at that and then we'll get started back again on the bill. Represent Gazaway you you're recognized to present house bill seventeen ninety. Thank you madam chair colleagues this bill concerns. amending the law related to aggravated assault and domestic battery abloy computers from the Arkansas prosecuting attorneys association here in this part of the prosecuting attorneys association's legislative package but the vast majority of those bills into the big crime bill that's making its way through the Senate. to the house but this one was one that kind of came into last minute did make in that bill so with chairs permission estimates computers beyond explained bill. It will state your name for the record you're recognized. Madam chair members of the committee employee compared with that deputy prosecutor coordinator thank you for allowing me to be here and I'll do my best to explain the bill this was brought to us by a deputy prosecutor went through our legislative committee and the legislative committee adopted it to be one of our proposals this session and basically it what this bill does it amends the disk domestic battering in the first degree statute in a couple of different places they're currently enhancements kind of as elements in those two statutes or the to print sections of the domestic battery statute first degree where if someone has committed a previous domestic battery on a family or household member that it can be used to bump it up to that first degree felony level and so what this proposal does is it adds in aggravated assault AS one not only can you happen to be have your penalty enhanced if you have committed a previous domestic battery but the prosecutors felt like sometimes aggravated assault on a family or household member is as violent and dangerous and sometimes more so than an actual battery committed on a family or household member so what this does is just as in aggravated assault on a family or household member as something that can be added to the enhancements so another words of a person has committed a battery or aggravated assault more than once and they're being charged with domestic battery it can be bumped up to that first degree level and I think because of the elements of aggravated assault on a family or household member which can include you know holding a gun to someone's head and you may not actually commit the battery it can be very dangerous and so they felt like that was important because usually in these kinds of cases you see a Pat. And of different behavior and so they wanted to be able to use both of those two crimes as crimes that can enhance the penalties. Members any questions. Seeing no questions we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill the president guess what you're recognized to close for house bill seventy ninety thank you madam chair and I do just want to say that there's already a list of certain crimes that can be used. If you have those in your past to enhance up to a higher level of domestic battery first degree for instance and this this bill concerns specifically domestic battery first degree domestic battery second degree and how prior convictions can be used to bump up the level and so this would add to the already existing list of crimes that can be used to bump up the level if you have those in your past aggravated assault on a family or household member that would now be a qualifying crime if you had it in your past that could bump up if you commit a new domestic battery offenses basically the way that I understand and so yes that's correct are and so with that I'm close for the bill make a motion to pass members we have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion please say aye opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you have passed your bill members let's move to house bill seventeen ninety two. House bill seventeen ninety two. And guess what you're recognized to present house bill seventeen ninety two. Thank you madam chair so this bill concerns. Circunstancia enforce some specific circumstances in the code. That the court can or they can be used to modify alimony going forward The court court will allow a person to petition for modification of alimony that's existing law. if there's been a material change in circumstances but this would include some some some specific. instances that would constitute. So that the court to consider when considering whether or not there has been a material change that would include the recipient's financial need to has a significantly reduced due to a child reaching age majority recipients financial situation has considered considerably improved since the date of the divorce recipients standard of living exceeds that which he or she was accustomed to during the marriage papers ability to pay has significantly and involuntarily decreased or disability illness loss of employment other causes payor retires is over sixty five. evidence of inability to work because of a disability read the evidence provided by a medical professional and the point being those would all be things of the court to consider when determining whether or not there had been a material change which all seem like very favorite things to me and then section two says poor alimony orders after Jett July one twenty twenty three that that would be a limitation of time seven no more than one half of the length of the marriage so for instance if you're married ten years you get alimony for five million for twenty years you get alimony for twenty your committee for forty years you get alimony for twenty years so it does put some limitation on it so that you can't be married for five years and then be required to pay alimony for the rest of your life you know in perpetuity the the need to be some reasonable limitation I think one half the length of the marriage of being a reasonable limitation and so that's all the bill does happy to answer any questions. Members are there any questions represent Collins you're recognized for a question that's kind of a compound question if I could to parts certain is there a limitation on the duration of alimony now in law. My understanding. I've I've heard various. Reports on this at. I've heard that in cases where there been awards a permanent alimony that appellate courts have struck it down. But I've heard of of the ward's apartment alimony being made yeah but basically you're going to pay someone for the remainder of their natural life. Which makes sense I suppose if you're dealing with people who are much older but it does not make sense in instances when you're dealing with people who are really young and have not been married for very long I don't think that that's that's typical but I think the point is is we do it would be wise to put in some reasonable limitation and I think one half of the length of the marriage this is a pretty reasonable limitations of follow up you're recognized so I I'm guessing I mean maybe I'm wrong but it sounds like you're saying there's not a limitation and I'm guessing that's probably because we typically let the courts do equity in you know these cases and and we deferred to the judge to determine what's a good one so I guess I'm just wondering why any and why this one case are we not trusting the court to do what they do respective pretty much everything else in one of these divorced persons well I think it's the same reason we have limitations on everything I mean it as upon a public policy standpoint as the legislature. We put limitations on the length of sentences for instance in criminal cases we say the minimum is ten the maximum sporty we put limitations on the statute of limitations on the number of years for when a case can be bought we make these types of decisions of limitations all the time with respect to very various. Areas of the law and I think alimony is no different we you know we we limit child support to be paid when a child turns eighteen or graduate from high school whichever is later. And that's the law we could make child support go until twenty one until the child graduates from college you know we we set these limitations all the time in the question is is is what's reasonable I mean I suppose you could say with respect to child support why don't we just let the judge decide when a child no longer needs support if that happens to be when they graduate from college or when they turn twenty one we should just leave that purely to the discretion of the judge. But we don't do that is the legislature. We put some limits on these types of. Instances alter it in these types of situations all the time whether the child support whether bees criminal sentences whether the statute of limitations it's just a policy decision in my opinion manager could I just ask is the judicial council have a position on this bill. Knobs are not as would suffice for sex well and that will that district judge sitting over there so that's a different council. This bill when was the bill filed representative Gazaway today or yesterday I think it was filed yesterday so that very well be the reason why there's not a position. Come up decision or a position on this okay thanks. Right any further questions. It any other questions. I should say no further questions we have no one signed up to speak for against the bill representative Gazaway you're recognized to close for the bill thank you manager and once again at the first. Part of the bill I think is in tight since for some entirely reasonable factors that a court would want to consider when considering whether to modify alimony I think the second set of can second consideration about. The The time period is important because. Permanent alimony awards for people you know they could last indefinitely for people that were very very short period of time to me seem to be presumptively unreasonable and I think one half the length of the of the marriage is actually a very good balance because. You know you may say that someone who's married forty years for instance they have made when they were twenty that means the person would be sixty that means they would be entitled to alimony for potentially up to twenty years which would mean they would be getting alimony until they were at least eighty years old so it's going to cover the folks who've been married a long time for being able to get alimony for well into you know the later years what it protects against is people who have not been married for a very long. Being having to pay alimony. For. Forever for the foreseeable future so I think it's a reasonable limitation. And with that would make a motion to pass. Members we have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it you have passed your bill. Member states trying to house bill seventeen ninety three house bill seventeen ninety three. Gazaway you're recognized to present house bill seventeen ninety three thank you madam chair house bill seventeen ninety three concerns the family support chart that's promulgated in sept separated by the Supreme Court that concerns child support and specifically what we're providing for hearing is this is you know just a simple one paragraph bill The committee shall revise the family child support but the family support charge 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 a hundred and 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 is. a hundred forty one nights per year is kind of the magic the magic number there where the court start looking at What's more than just visitation what would be more than just what's kind of included as standard visitation chart but more of what would be considered along the lines of equal time and so the point is just saying that the the committee We'll make adjustments to the chart we and you know for the instance where the parenting time is divided by more than a hundred forty one nights per year. That's really all it does that I mean I think that's pretty simple. I'm happy to answer any questions. Members are there any questions. Seeing the questions I do believe we have judge. Hello if you like to come to the in the table. Thank you madam chairman which shall district judge it sure what we're up against the bill asked the bill really be sent to the Supreme Court committee on child support for consideration of this but the bill just introduced this afternoon we really haven't had a chance to look at this this issue was taken up last year by the Arkansas Supreme Court committee who look based on numerous vetted studies as well as data from other states have done this very same thing rejected this idea because it causes more that occasion parents seem to trade off days in order to kind of lower child support for they disagree because it requires them to keep a number of days and no parent can agree on the number of days that were actually kept as a result it causes a lot more mid litigation crossing our dear Arkansas families money as to just respectfully ask this bill to be sent to the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on child support to review it. Any questions to judge Hale. Did you have anything you wanted. I believe does help said of what what the my understanding is we just like more time this was possibly yesterday and it's really important that the child support committee who was invested in this and tasked with this be able to have more time to review this and go over with judicial council so we'd really like more time to build it really look at this in way and and and and add any additions or changes we would propose. Richey Richmond you're recognized. What is more time how much time are we talking. We are meeting in the morning with judicial council we just have it at so I don't okay we'll be here so bring it on over. I said we won't be. Anything else. Judge tell you may explain at we have a number of people who are not attorneys up possibly that but the Supreme Court set set not just within child support but other things that might make help the committee understand when you're talking about the child support committee of the Supreme Court all they basically make the calculations on what proper amount of child support should be paid based on your income and also the recipient their earnings as well and compare the two to make a determination what would be a relatively fair amount of child support and that's their basic whole premise. All right members any further questions. I see no further questions thank you for coming into the table offering your comments this evening we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill. Gazaway you're recognized to close for your bill thank you madam chair and you know let me say aye I really don't understand the objection because the committee that he's talking about this is the committee that it just says we'll revises the the support chart by taking this into consideration doesn't tell on how to do it it doesn't tell him what it should be it doesn't tell on what numbers to put their how it has to be divided or help it doesn't do anything like that it just says that. That your buys it considering those factors and once again leaves a lot of discretion for them at I'm really surprised that they would even be any opposition to this. But nevertheless I think it's a good bill and. I make a motion to pass in the nation to do pass on the floor is there any discussion of the motion. Seeing their discussion of the motion all in favor say aye. All opposed say no. Than those handed the bill is failed members let's go to have our last bill house bill seventeen ninety four. Represent Gazaway you're recognized. Thank you madam chair so this bill very simple includes the interest that's paid on. Child support payments child support the becomes due and is paid accrues interest at currently under the law ten percent and you know the issue is that seems to be very arbitrary at an age it should be pointed out that the interest that has to be paid on past due child support doesn't go to the child. And is just set by statute ten percent so you're just taking money out of that person who's paying child support you just taking money out of their pocket that's not going to the child my understanding is that money goes to the state and so if we're going to take money out of someone's pocket who doesn't pay child support is not going to go to the child we shouldn't do it at the rate of ten percent so I didn't limited entirely which I think you know quite honestly would have been reasonable to just eliminated entirely but uh made it two percent which I think is much more fair much more reasonable so that's all the bill does happy to answer any questions members any questions. Seeing no questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill. Represent guess what you're recognized close for your bill. because the bill make a motion to pass. We have a motion to do pass a discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no. By Sambit you've passed your bill congradulations meeting adjourned.