Judiciary Committee- House

Today will be house bill so if there's anybody in the audience that is anticipating a Senate bill all Senate bills will be held heard on Tuesday of next week today is dedicated simply to House bills we've got a full agenda I'm anticipating that we will be in here as late as we can hold and still time to get to lunch to get to session and then we will have to come back even though the house is not meeting in the morning I anticipate we will be getting back I'm going to go straight down the agenda going to give those individuals who have not had an opportunity to appear before our committee this session those bills will be the ones that will get called up. first but they'll be being called up in order typically you know it's my practice to let people who have several bills to run all at one time but we're not going to do that we're just gonna start at the top so folks may have to get up and get back down but I think that that's the best way that we can do to give everybody a hearing that they need to hear. The first bill that we have is house bill fourteen fifty six I do not see representative Gazaway at this time so we will drop down to House Bill sixteen oh three representative Bentley you're welcome recognized to go to the into the table to present your bill this member's house bill sixteen oh three. What you identify yourself you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you chairman colleagues representative Mary Bentley here with house bill sixteen oh three this is a very simple revision bill of two thousand five legislation on for our drug task force so if you guys on the way we have a fifteen drug task force across the state trying to get drugs off the street there I'm passionate about helping this group gets more funding in a get the funding they need to do the job that they do each day I don't I'm sure that you guys are where the drugs are flooding our streets are killing our kids every day I was just looking at a report from Tom Fisher our new drug task force managers Director if you guys have not had a chance to meet Tom please make an opportunity so he's gonna do a great job for our state but the desks are stated to skyrocketing to defend on math when you do everything we can to help these these groups so that's what this bill is about this Gillam background on one here one more fact I'm gonna give you before we get to the bill is that and two thousand and twenty to the drug task force seized as many drugs off the streets in Arkansas as the three years previously combined so they get as much as twenty twenty two as they do the three previous years together and are in twenty twenty three that the fifty eight percent of what they're getting twenty twenty two so we've got to do something to help the drug task force and that's what this bill is about this morning so if you look at the code there we rewarded so we have a in two thousand five English on Broadway that right of a bill to set up a fee so when there's a drug crime the a judge will five hundred twenty five dollar fee to that drug crime drug crime whoever committed drug crime to get that feedback to the drug task force to help fund the drug task force so we're you know it's been a long time since two thousand five I'm just bumping that fee up to one hundred fifty dollars for the one hundred twenty five dollars and that's a fee that's applied so right now we have the the court costs are ahead of this and this through for the things ahead of this fees so this is about fourth on the list when the collecting the fees from a so it's been convicted of a drug crime and the other thing it does if you look at the end there we had a cap of fifteen hundred dollars on that what they could do for grant those into the. In a five I thought about is increasing that number but I thought we're going to keep increasing that number because costs keep going up we have inflation going to the roof things are costing a whole lot more than they did in two thousand five I will let you know that I took that off there because this group any money that they spend has to go through twenty seven member review board everything they spend is very scrutinized so I think there's folks that'll catch that I'm answering this effort to put a cap on that so that's the bill in its essence there any questions from committee members are there any questions representative Collins recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so this is in addition to any criminal sentence or any criminal fine they may have to pay this is a fee on top of that there were increasing is that right yes I've been there since two thousand five a mistake might go from one twenty five to one fifty but it's been there since two thousand five the but it be higher now it would be higher if yes one twenty five to one fifty okay thanks. Members any other questions. Seeing no further questions we have no one signed up to speak for against the bill per se Bentley you're recognized to close for your bill I think I've explained it well thank you I appreciate a good pass members represent Bentley has closed for the bill 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 congratulations you've passed your bill thank you chairman thank you committee a bill of great day. President will come to the in the table we're going to hear house bill sixteen fifteen members house bill sixteen fifteen point you identify yourself if you have a witness you can bring your witness or someone wants to test by you can go ahead and bring that individual up identify yourself and have you witness to defy yourself you're recognized to explain house bill sixteen fifteen thank you state representative Robin Lundstrum. Greg Jackson of the lands defending freedom. And we are here today to present the conscience protection bill H. B. sixteen fifteen this simply assure us that our Kansans will have the strongest additional protection for its citizens. in the rights of conscience it basically upset dates the Freedom of restoration act it provides definitions to ensure that the Arkansas refractor uses the most current protective language to protect religious freedom Arkansas's current reference lacks robust definitions this will update that it also codifies the most protective court interpretations of our referred across the country it also guarantees that no government discrimination of religion with that I'll open up to questions and also ask my wonderful and gentleman that came and I am asking to give you a few comments sure I could make your comments and then we'll take questions thank you thank you madam chair I prepared a lengthier statement explaining importance of religious freedom in the history religious freedom why this would be a bill be important but of interest of time and respect for all of your time I'll just come ready to the chase that this bill codifies definitions that have been used in other states codifies definitions that the supreme court and other courts across the country have interpreted other reference to mean it doesn't create much new law it just codifies things that we've seen in other places and updates important definitions key definitions that are needed to protect religious freedom as intended originally by the river here. Members are there any questions represent Clowney you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair so it if I were doing it is As you just mentioned codifying the intent of our original referred why we relying on things that happened in other states rather than than with Arkansas courts interpreted are lost so far. Thank you representative at Durban law review articles and all these cases that are brought up they're always looking at different questions of what is compelling interest with a substantial burden and all of that lack of clarity leads to people not knowing what the religious freedom rights are when they feel that they've been burden so you can have examples of somebody's religious freedom being burdened of a law that prohibits for example some of pastor that's providing services to homeless people this is an example that's happened if the council start putting a rule that stops you from doing that will you know whether or not Arkansas is referred protection with a lack of clarity might not so we would be able to raise a case so there could be people's rights being violated without even knowing it. You're recognized thank you. Okay. I guess I'm I'm having a little bit of trouble understanding why somebody wouldn't use religion as a defense for anything that they wanted to can you explain what in the bill prevents that from happening. Yes so referred and Arkansas and other states to protect sincerely held religious beliefs and that's something that courts routinely know how to look at and analyze and whether or not something is a religious belief and not just a personal preference. Representative call you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair so since some folks and governmental cooperations could refuse to do something based on their religious beliefs is this are we going to a place where when someone applies for a job we have to ask them questions and determine whether we're going to hire them or not based on that. Actually just the opposite that's really not any of our business with their religious beliefs are when you apply for a job. Follow up please recognized. Well. I'm trying to figure out how phrases because I also feel like that. When I went to get married and there was it was a legal thing to do that was none of their business what I was trying to do either when I applied for a marriage license or anything like that because of separate just the sept separations during constitution between church and state this just seems like I think it seems like that we have a ton of religious freedom protections I just trying to understand the can you maybe expand on I just understand the reason from this bill. More of it. So I miss it so that may be so there's the metal is amended I think mid of this week to focus just on referred I removed some portions of the bill so that the marriage part of it that was in the earlier version is no longer in the bill is amended to just focus on dating definitions for reference again the referred languages it's the same substantive language it's just provides definitions to clarify what's already there. Everyone should have the have the amendments been engrossed that's what you're looking for when did you file your amendments and are they engrossed yes ma'am they are and that was as of Monday okay I do we were just double checking. I'm sorry representative call I didn't mean to interrupt you gotta you have another question not not. Any other questions representative Hudson you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so eighty nine I guess kind of to along the same lines is as represent clients question I mean we have the first amendment we have a number protections we have extensive case on the state of Arkansas and we have the fact that the voters in the states specifically said that they did not want us to continue to build additional I had put additional laws either I'm on the bus or in our state constitution in this very last election when they rejected a religious freedom amendments so why are we again going against the will of the people of the state and the and injecting another religious freedom bill and when they have told us that they don't think that they need why do we know better than the people of the state. Well first of all I don't believe we're going against the will of the people the state I think the last. Ballot initiative I think you and I would agree on this part that everyone was very confusing and the people were. I think felt. That that by the way it was when it was confusing. And if I look at it at first blush I probably would have voted in for either. The way it was written. This is a clarifies and clears up a lot of definitions and would I think would be comforting to someone that would read it and we have clarity in the law you have less confusion and I think that's incredibly important for the people of Arkansas have that clarity and have those definitions. Any time. You protect religious freedom I think it's important to do that. You're recognized. Do you worry although that this is the separation of powers issue given the fact that often in the case file that we have in Arkansas we leave it to judges to determine based on the specific facts of a specific situation whether or not and a person's individual religious freedom has or has not been violated and typically when you look at case audit covering employments religious practice any number of things in the spectrum of of of dealing with the first amendment and that separation of church and state in the rights of balancing the right to religious freedom versus another person's individual rights we leave it to the judicial branch to help us make those determinations so do you worry at all that we are now dictating what that judicial branch is required to do in these cases in which they would typically use the fax of the specific situation that they are presented with now first of all it's up to us as the legislative branch to set the parameters in the judicial branch interprets the interpret those parameters and this makes the interpretation clear also we are pulling back government and putting the frame around the government and as far as our religious beliefs we're allowed to have those religious beliefs at any time. And all of. That's right and you know that you can go longer common remarks and comments about the history of of the religious freedom restoration act that you have here the first amendment first amendment was scaled back in nineteen ninety Federal referred twenty three states now have them long as dress far as why you have a statute this way and as representative Lundstrum just said this at the clarity for the courts to actually help them do what they are doing. Members any further questions represent clan you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair I had a different question but actually I want to follow up on some of the you decide really quickly so it decides clearly have we heard from courts that they want more clarity. Well across the country every time these cases are brought up they have to do these rigorous analyses and judges can differ on their views and that's what makes things have to go to Supreme Court resolution so people will get faster resolution if they have clarity in the law. He would have Arkansas judges weighed in on this. as far as asking particular for this legislation I am not aware of that. Four expected as iron for it sorry for expenses I have for that clarity you're saying it has been. Live not that I wouldn't have at. Kaspar somebody picking up phone calling me. Why would they do that. You need to follow up yes thank you madam chair what they would do that if we're saying that what we're trying to provide clarity to the court I would think that we would like to know that the courts wanted clarity about that we are providing that times are trying to get out but but regardless of that question which I guess I'm not well I guess the answer to that question is no no court has expressed that they want that I'm looking at page six lines twelve through sixteen. a person master of violation of this subchapter as a claim against the state government in any judicial or administrative proceeding but. And without regard to whether that proceeding is brought by or in the name of the state government and a private person or any other party I'm just confused about a starting a violation of the claim against state government and state governments not involved in the case can you just explain kind of practically what that means and why this language is in here. Sure so that would come in to so what all these referred to do as it says whenever there's a state action that person's religious exercise and that language I understand to mean that anytime a state law would be used in a way that person's religious exercise referred could be appealed to so the fact that there's a state law that's being the thing that's imposing a burden on someone's religious exercise that's where I'm coming one one one one thank you madam chair okay so just hypothetically if somebody believes in Arkansas state I was in violation of their deeply held same day tends to sharia law this would be a defense. Well so you can always bring claims with another successful to different things so anybody's religious exercise right so which relied on for talking about something violent or just them sharing their faith believes after something violent and there's a compelling interest to stop violence and harm to individuals the least restrictive means that's that's how that's courts use reference but people can bring up religious liberty claim if the something files a sincerely held religious beliefs. Members any other questions. Seeing no further questions we have to individuals who signed up to speak for the bill Stephanie Nichols okay thank you UP next Bob Ballinger. We have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill per se Lundstrum you're recognized close for your bill. Thank you I think the most important thing we can do is clarify the law we have clarity in the law and that's our job as legislators it's easier to interpret the law that is incredibly important and religious freedom is one the most important rights that we have in this country and with that I'll close. Members represent less from as close for a bill with the wishes of the committee of 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 posts I know. Buys have a congratulations you've passed your bill thank you thank you for your time. Is there anyone here but this time to run house bill sixteen twenty three. Representantes sure you. In the room. All right with that. The next bill is represent Galatasaray's bill anybody here to run house bill sixteen sixty three. We'll come back to that one. And the next one is represented as well as bill will come back to that one next up representative had sent house bill sixteen seventy. Members trying to House Bill sixteen seventy. Per se Payton if you've identified yourself you know the routine you may begin. Hi good morning colleagues I can't believe I've made it this far without appearing in front of judiciary so I'm happy to be with you all today to present this bill thank you bill sixteen seventy is an act to amend the human life protection act with a small exception that would provide that children and victims of incest are entitled to obtain an abortion under those very limited circumstances and we know because we have heard likely from constituents but also from the statistics provided both in Arkansas nationally that there is strong support for trying to protect children who are faced with these types of circumstances. And one thing to remember when we're talking about children in this circumstance is that the age of consent in Arkansas sixteen which means that any time a child is engaged in sexual intercourse whether they believe it is consensual or not if they are younger than sixteen than it is right. And we also know that Arkansas has the highest percentage of ad pregnancies under the age of fifteen in the country even though I population as a whole is only one percent of the population of the state of the country so two point four percent of all children who become pregnant are from Arkansas. What we also know is that the physical effects on a child who becomes pregnant are significant. One of the most common and the obvious ones is the fact that many times these children's palaces are not large enough to birth a baby which means that they have longer labors sometimes the baby a stock they require C. sections sometimes the baby dies sometimes the mother dies and we also know that Arkansas has the highest maternal mortality rate the fourth highest in the country. When we talk about issues of abortion I recognize that we're talking about things that are difficult and that many of you in here have a lot of different interests that are pulling you in a lot of different directions I get it. But when we're talking about a situation in which a ten year old child is being forced to carry a pregnancy to term that may kill her. That may result in a dead baby. Or that may result in permanent lifetime physical disabilities then we need to take a really serious look at what we're doing and why we want the public policy of this state to sentence children to these types. Of issues and we're not even touching on the mental health issues that will these children are facing. I was given information earlier this week about a twelve year old girl. You had to spend her Christmas vacation traveling out of state to obtain an abortion. The reason she had to obtain that abortion is because a family member had been raping her since she was eight years old. Finally at twelve she got her period and apparently was able to conceive a child. And because we couldn't give her any relief here her family had to spend Christmas vacation traveling with her to someone who would. Now. I have heard from some colleagues that they believe that children would automatically fall into the exception and for the life of the mother but remembered that the way our exception is written that that mother has to be very much on the brink of death in order to qualify and in many cases the harm to the child is not readily apparent won't happen immediately. And would not would not fall into this exception. Even the president of the national right to life association has conceded that children likely should fall into an exception. But in her case she said that she believes that they fell into the life of the mother exception to ours And so now that they don't. All I'm asking what this bill is to allow families parents to work with their trusted physicians and make decisions to try to protect their own children we've spent an awful lot of time during the session talking about protecting kids and we've spent an awful lot of time this session talking about empowering parents to help their children make these decisions. We've also spent an awful lot of time the session talking about things that kids aren't ready to do we've talked about materials they're not it ready to read we've talked about materials are not ready to see we've talked about activities that they are not ready to perform and yet. We talk about making them parents. I'm happy to take any questions I recognize that the ask I recognize the rest but I do think that we need to start having the discussion about why we're forcing children to carry pregnancies to term that is the public policy of the state right now members are there any questions represent Crawford you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair representative Hudson. I have worked with young women. Since nineteen ninety who have been pregnant. Skews me I have worked with many who were twelve years old. I've House them. I've helped them through. And they did not die at having a baby. Some chose to parent and some chose to adopt it depended on their support system. Just because a young girl is. Pregnant. Anything at twelve or whatever you think she should have an abortion. Would you not agree that two wrongs don't make a right. That her mental health would be worse after she experienced an abortion then it would to be able to. With help with support give birth to the child and placed the baby for adoption respectfully I disagree and I would disagree that it's up to me at all. What I think and what you think about what a child in her family may think about and how that child may recover from pregnancy or from an abortion is really irrelevant and the point is that we shouldn't be making this decision that this very personal decision should be made by the family. Follow up you're recognized thank you I agree family makes it. But just like the young lady who had to go out of state to obtain an abortion at twelve. I would you not agree that they can still get the abortion if the family chose that if the family has the resources to take the time off work pay for travel paid for hotel pay for the procedure pay for meals Jr. Thank you members any other questions. Seeing no further questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill representative Hudson you're recognized. Sorry we just didn't see the treasure recognized to come to speak against the bill. Will devote yourself you're recognized yes my name is Tony road I'm representing an American speaks and H. B. sixteen seventy is violence answered with violence and innocents twice to file once by rape. By incest and once with the murder of the unborn child. It's often not the victim who wants the abortion sometimes it is the perpetrator. H. B. sixteen seventy allows the incestuous defender to eliminate the evidence there been laws in place for abortionists like Planned Parenthood to report suspected or known cases of rape and incest yet they repeatedly ignored them and willing covered them up they apparently had no fear of potential prosecution. In the twenty eighteen live action report detailed numerous examples like this one that I'm going to give you now. In Washington state George the van I had repeatedly raped his minor daughter impregnated her when she was fourteen sixteen and seventeen each time he got her pregnant he took her to Planned Parenthood and forced her to get an abortion to cover up his crimes one reason Savannah was able to get away with this sexual abuses because Planned Parenthood repeatedly failed to report the suspicious incidents to authorities. Even though the victim was below the age of legal sexual consent the first time she was brought to them because Planned Parenthood failed to report the first second and even third time Savannah brought his daughter in four portions he continued to rape her several times a week for seven horrific years. This isn't just an indictment of Planned Parenthood who hopes to see this other exceptions pass so they can re open but the abortion industry as a whole. While abortion. Is allowed abortionist will not be deterred by rules or laws. History has taught us that when you give them one child they will take sixty three million of them. Abortion is against the law in Arkansas except to save the life of the mother. In a medical emergency please do not dismantle a good law by packed picking it apart with these attempted exceptions. Every exception to the good abortion laws that we have is attempted to be exploited. And hard case laws like this open the door for exceptions. If any questions. No questions thank you for your testimony today. Members we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representative Hudson you're recognized to close for your bill thank you madam chair. In twenty twenty two cents since Dobbs the incidents nationwide of maternal mortality has increased thirty four percent. Thirty four percent. Arkansas was already in the top four from maternal mortality we're number two in teen pregnancies were number one in child sexual assault. And then twenty twenty. Twenty twenty we had forty three girls in the state who are under the age of fifteen who gave birth. So that doesn't count all the pregnancies that counts the ones that made it to giving birth. I don't think that we should make abortion super excess will I get that that is not the policy and I don't think anybody in here once that but when you're talking about a ten year old child. His body isn't even done forming. Being required to carry a pregnancy to term. I think that we need to stop and consider why we're making it our policy to require children to go through forced birth. I want to read you an excerpt of an experience that happened here in Arkansas that was shared with NPR involving a fourteen year old girl named Marianna. Said she suffered mightily during her daughter's birth she members telling your mother I don't want to do none of this. Nurses routinely check to see how far she dilated but she couldn't get her legs open wide enough for them to do the checks because she was too small. She said there were seven nurses up in there and I was like no why are you all doing this. Hours later a doctor had to use vacuum suction to pull the baby through her fourteen year old vaginal canal ripping apart the skin and muscle of her premium. And for the gentleman in the room on the telly something that hurts and in many cases causes permanent damage and in many cases causes such permanent damage that you leak fecal matter for the rest of your life. Among other things. We need to think hard about why we're making kids do this. And today I just want us to start having that discussion I'm close for my bill and would appreciate a good vote. Thank you making a motion to do pass I am making Russian do 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 say aye. All opposing the. It does have it the bill has failed. Member states moved that K. C. represent tosses come to the. Room let's move to House Bill sixteen twenty three representantes you're recognized come to the end of the table identify yourself in it. Do you have a witness you like to bring. And yes ma'am I'm representative rod Tosh and I'd like to bring to the table with me the Director of the Arkansas state police combat K. sure I'm colonel Hayter please feel free to come in the table. Tosh hang on just a moment we have a sentencing impact we have an impact assessment from the sentencing commission so we're going to be passing that out at this time as soon as everybody has a copy of that then we'll let you go. Sixteen twenty three. Right represented Tosh I believe everybody has the sentencing impact statement you're recognized to present your bill thank you madam chair committee members this bill was brought to me by the attorney general's office on behalf of the Arkansas state police and I'm honored to have with me beside me here today the Director of the Arkansas state police Colonel my cater. There's been a growing problem in law enforcement more or when officers are attempting to stop a vehicle they they play from the officer and we've seen the. the event major increase in in these vehicles and officers have been to start a percentage because basically in the past the way the law is written now that these people have got a car full of drugs and they know that plane from a police officer is simply a a misdemeanor charge a class a misdemeanor then they take their chances so what we're here to to do today is we're not changing the the statute and concerning to the fleeing law other than a and the penalty and that's the only change an amendment that we made and we just want to increase that problem by a class a misdemeanor to a Class D. felony and just to give an example of just a couple of numbers is that in twenty sixteen this is state police numbers only had two hundred and ninety one people that played that fled from a law enforcement from state troopers last year that almost doubled with five hundred and thirty seven so you see this increase and and people are just not they're just not paying the penalty that's in front of them and so we need to make them think about it twice and that's hopefully what this bill would do members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representantes you're recognized recognized close for your bill. Madam chair I'm close with the bill and I'll wait a minute hello how will don I I do my best to skip over this did not. Sixteen twenty three right here. Mr Rosenzweig we missed you appear so we got you he did signed up to speak against it so you're recognized to speak it said I apologise Rosa Tosh of criminal defense lawyers the problem with this bill all of which is a good purpose is going to be subject to a lot of abuse because it doesn't say how long the person is gone over the speed limit doesn't say how much over the speed limit and you have ambiguous circumstances with regard to that you could have people found guilty of this who are in the process of slowing down. Because of a written all that their of their their apprehension is being attempted they maybe one say twenty five miles over the speed limit they slow down but for a period of time technically they're in violation would be in violation of this as a felony this the bill needs to be narrowed there's already it's already a felony if it's being op if the if the of a car her vehicle is being operated under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life which is a pretty broad A definite of anyway and that's already and that's that's already in the law which you see at the bottom of the page I think what you and up with this the bill is not needed at least not needed in its current form it needs to be it narrowed to the people who they're really trying to catch. Members any questions. President will be recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair I don't know if this needs to be directed to Mr Rosen's Wagner The sponsor but I'm just curious. How often. Or is one of these perpetrators that flees from police officers are they doing something otherwise illegal versus just being dumb idiots kids and I ask this because growing up in rural East Arkansas I've never done it personally but I think I know lots of people who back in their younger more adolescent days were foolish and fled from cops and many of them the only Elise they claimed to have gotten away when really they were just seventeen years old on or being idiots but that's my question if that makes sense madam chair with your permission I think that Kanhai grouping that colonel Hager you want to take a stab at answering adolescent it is. Yes ma'am so we have I've actually had some notes and and thank captain Tosh for not asking justice by directly. Having said that for those that don't know he was my crew commander I still refer him to is kept in touch that means no disrespect I'm actually still a little bit intimidated by the man and. We are calling to. so to answer that question truthfully that's a religion we've some of the stats that they kept arms are represented Tosh gave you. That refers overall to the state of Arkansas the we're slowly gathering some those status up for instance last year that that some of those that is reflected it doesn't show all the pursuit data from true pay but as a former crew commander entry page I know what those numbers are so just to give you a brief idea in two thousand seventeen we have seventy eight percent that per annum by true page rippers in two thousand and twenty two we had three hundred and twenty four persons. It has gotten to be an absolute epidemic and the reason why is because there is no fear whatsoever the criminal justice system the suspects will tell us they tell us freely for infrequently on video that they're more concerned about the State Police tearing up their car and they are the consequences of the criminal justice system every time of a suspect for use in the vehicle every single time regardless of the outcome they're putting my family at risk of putting your family at risk you could almost make an argument that it's aggravated assault for every vehicle that they pass they're putting all of our families at risk. The the idea that people are flowing out of foolishness or just out of immaturity we keep numbers on that entry pay our sergeants that were required at the end of every pursuit they would give the problem calls for stop so a lot of times when you hear people say especially news outlets that they may make the comment that well they were in this pursuit that ended tragically and the reason they were chasing this person is because they've had expired tax or because whatever it and they give that impression that's the reasons persons falling that's the probable cause for the stop we keep stats on why people are I'm sorry while the trooper initiated the stop to begin with and again I can only speak to the state police but also the pieces share some morning knowledge that they also support this bill but having said that so we keep stats on why the trooper initiated the stop to begin with. We also keep stats on why that person was actually feeling and what we find is that the probable cause for stop may be as simple traffic violation like speeding expired tags where the case may be the reason they were fleeing is because their possession of felony amount of narcotics they were possession of weapons they were full of Skylanders they had warrants for their arrest they're trying to discard evidence you know will we see frequently where there's two reasons the people flee they flee because they're trying to actually obeyed police and and prevent a rest for they're trying to fully long enough to discard evidence we recovered frequently we recover weapons that are discarded during the pursuit that are tied back to homicides in our and first degree battery that you're aggravated assault we were we recover felony amounts in our Kotick frequently so that idea is just simply not true I can't say that it's never happened but in my time in true baby we we deal with and we process and we reviewed literally thousands of pursuits during that time well say thousands but well over three hundred twenty four two thousand twenty two alone. The the difference between probable cause for stop and the reason they're actually running is always a completely different story so that is I would say overwhelmingly just not accurate. Represent Richardson you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair of. Mr Rosenzweig is brought up a point that I was just looking at the. It may be just for you represented Tosh and I'm in favor of the bill but should we tied it up for miles over the speed limit because it's my understanding that it's not uncommon for people to drive over the speed limit on interstate so if there two or three miles over they don't see the lights flashing. And I know that probably wouldn't happen I'm just saying is does it does it make sense to say that if there over three miles over the speed limit of five years and that's irrelevant. My response that would be how many people are they put in jeopardy during that time but more importantly you have to understand there's a difference first of all between failing to yield inflation our troopers instructed in training and state law is pretty clear that you have to articulate that person is feeling okay so in other words that to the point that you made about someone that you initiated traffic stop and they were over the speed limit the now somehow they would be considered playing is not accurate there if you initiated traffic stop in the immediately start yielding to the shelter that is not fully that's not even failing to yield fully is when you can articulate this person is actively trying to evade law enforcement are passing on the shoulder they've increased their speed not decrease their speed things like that that's a burden we have to show. As for a follow up thank you manage it so basically the officer would have said a pullover they ignored and take office is what this is I'm sorry I'm ignorant police officers were yes it's worse but that's that's what it is right yes Sir when the emergency lights in between is activated by okay subject and they they yield yes Sir St college recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair isn't it true representative I mean it looks to me like in excess of the posted speed limit is an existing lawsuit that wouldn't be anything new that that part is in there it's just a different consequence but for the timely concept it's the same law been there right but that's correct the only time we change was the penalty that the wording of the the current law will have to sign that was already in the overall as we moved it over to the new law would you change the the penalty thank you. J. Scott you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair I'm not against the bill I think I just want a little more data clarity on do you have the numbers of tragedies or president says probably ended in deaths in the last at least year or two on you. No ma'am I do not have those numbers and again I can only speak for our agency but I can tell you that the longer pursuit goes on the more likely it's going to happen a colleague of mine once made the comparison it it's. If you allow pursuit is like fall or at allowing active shooter to walk in the mall hoping he's a bad shot every intersection and he goes through every car that he passes again that's all of our families completely oblivious to what's going on around them that that's a that's all of them in danger so I don't have those numbers but I can tell you have seen it personally Hey I was just wondering okay with one of my district last night and I saw it in any time I see one I'm concerned from myself and others so I was just wondering if we have some data on what actually you know the tragedies in Arkansas that might be taking place from Mississippi I do not. Members any other questions say no further questions per se Tosh Europe representing more. Okay I I get what you're doing okay representative Tashi recognized clothes for your bill thank you madam chair thank you committee members I appreciate a good vote on this I think it's extremely important that we move this bill forward increased as penalty and like the colonel of said the quicker we can get it done hopefully of the water to get out of more lives we can say and I would appreciate a good vote members per se Tosh is close was bill we have a motion to do pass on the table is a discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill the manager thank you Committee. Representante you're recognized to present House Bill sixteen ninety six House Bill sixteen ninety six. Thank you madam chair represented by District eighty seven so right now in Arkansas if you hang on just a second we can get that door closed so we can hear you sorry there you go we just couldn't hear appeals house bill sixteen ninety six is just picks and the first bite role in Arkansas right now if it's an animal and they bite an animal They don't get a first bite. Yes but humans do still get a first by pass so if a representative counties little girl was bitten by a dog injured by the dog had to go to the hospital the dog's owner is not responsible for that represent county would be responsible for that this will make it where that first bite the owner is responsible for the first bite. I don't think animals which should be protected any more than a human being should be and that's what this bill is for. Members any questions. Seeing no questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill. Cenvat you're recognized close I'm close to my bill appreciate good bad members representing thought his clothes for the bill I see a motion on the table a promotion do pass is there any discussion on the motion. Seeing no for discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposing them congratulations you Committee thank you madam chair. Representatives could you reach down there and close off that shot that microphone it's right close to you thank you. Members trying to house bill seventeen NO one house bill seventeen NO one representative Womack you're recognized come to the table to present house bill seventeen oh one thank you madam chair and committee honestly this is a subject that I don't have any personal experience or knowledge of and I'm thankful for that this was brought to me by constituent And in talking to other people going through similar situations they tended to agree this was a good idea and reasonable and I told him I would happily bring into this committee and and see what you guys thought so basically what this bill does in the instance of divorce if somebody has say for example a retirement account. For the purpose of marital assets it would quit appreciating on the day that somebody filed for divorce not at the time of divorce was final which could be two three four years later. That's what the bill does. Members I see questions represent Collins you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair it you know it seems reasonable to me too I I just don't know I mean if you talk with any of the judges of the facts you know the Who handle these kind of cases and sent out a couple local attorneys that that's not the entirety of the practice but they do it you know in the small town the kind of everything and they. They didn't know of any reason why this wouldn't be. Pretty easy to determine you know exact dollar amount on the Council given day and you have heard any negative response from anyone no Sir not to this point thank you president Clinton you're recognized you got your questions answered representive Underwood you're recognized for a question. Yes kind of I guess I kind of agree Collins of just not against it necessary understand curious do you know as any other state them in of any other state does at their filing or is this just I do not know the okay I was not familiar with. Okay thank you. Members any other questions represent as well you're recognized for a question. So I guess when I look at the language it says property that accumulates after a complaint for divorce is filed an interest bearing account that was in the name of one spouse only. And. We get it you know you get into situations where. People on the property prior to the marriage maybe they have that money in an account prior to the marriage and that's what's in their soul name. which I think would be their separate property in the event of divorce Have you had any discussions with anyone about. Why that why the interests should be split up the property would be theirs as their separate property. I'm not sure. I'm not sure I understand the question. Well I. When you talk about property in the name of one spouse only. Sometimes that are many times that occurs because they on the property before they got married to the person that's why it's in their name only. It was never it wasn't joint property to begin with and I'm my concern would just be that we may be making property that would be. Typically considered separate property somehow joint property. As a matter of law. Maybe not this is my concern is wondered if anyone had talked with you about that if you had any insight on I do not I can ask similar questions the drafters that bill because that language gave me a little confusion and basically they told me this was how this would have to be written for you attorneys to keep doing like you do I know that's not a good instruments it's all about. That's honestly what I was not joking when I came and said I'd look this committee in their wisdom and experience in these matters. Gazaway you're recognized. And I I just want to want to say this is a really as much of a question but I understand the intent of what you're trying to do basically I think if there's interest that accumulates during that period of time they would be entitled to it is essentially what you're trying to do. Okay. Yes I'm sorry okay that represented Hudson you're recognized. Thank you madam Chen's my piggy back a little bit off what represented Gazaway was saying that I if if if if the only intent is to ensure that they have the right to interest that accumulates after the time that the complaint has been filed understand that my concern though is that the language doesn't limited that way which means that there is the potential that a spouse could start moving marital assets into an account in their name prior to filing the divorce and then get the benefit of that as of that movement by virtue of of hiding behind the language here that says that they're entitled to everything that accumulates so long it's and as it as it's an interest bearing account because the accumulation is not limited to just interest the deal did you talk about that with any of the attorneys that you spoke allow months first first with the concern of ours that makes sense yeah it does okay it does. Members any other questions. Represent guess what you're recognized for a question well I think I may have answered my own question but I just read the bill I mean the the definition of Meryl property at the beginning is property acquired by either spouse subsequent to the marriage and this is adding that so course that made or we can speak about property this. Required subsequent to the marriage not the not the premarital separate property so I think I've answered my own question thank you. Members any other questions. We have no one else who signed up we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill. Supermac you're recognized to close for your bill okay Committee I sincerely appreciate your input and your expertise and wisdom on this and I trust you to to do what you think is best for the state of Arkansas I thank I thank I would appreciate a good vote but if you think I would not appreciate a good vote. It may be might appreciate putting this an interim study that might be a good appreciation to. Members present. Womack is head our most unusual close of the session so he'll be a ward for that member supported the wishes of the committee. Saying No motion. Wait. We do have a motion to do pass we have a motion to do pass is there any discussion of the motion representative had said you're recognized for discussion of the motion thank you madam chair and I. I did I I'm fine with the bill but for the fact that I am concerned without more precise language we're leaving the door open for mischief and I'm concerned that this can be used as a weapon to final assets to one spouse's accounts to the detriment of the other and prior to that divorce filing if this were limited only to the entrance that accumulates in the account I think it would be fine and I would understand it and I would agree with you but I think that as it is hi and a I'm afraid that it's just going to open the door to more litigation so I appreciate the bill I just I just can't get there on it today. Members any other discussion say no further discussion we do have a motion on the floor all in favor of the motion to pass say aye. All opposed say no. The nose have it the bill is fail but I think that there's some interest representative for mac if you want to pursue this further in another Avenue I think there is some interest all right thank you madam chair and Committee thank you. Madam chair I have another bill. Would you like me to do it while I'm at the table or or wait in line. Twelve thirty six that filed for awhile haven't you yes but there is an amendment today which is okay at I'm not into it today I wasn't going to let people batch but since this is been on here for a while in. And you did win the award for most creative closing. We will let you take this one some members turned to house bill twelve thirty six. Only because you're award winner today all right thank you ma'am. Members in amendments being passed out. Thank you. Some. All five. Sullivan. Representative baby you'll be up next after this bill. We'll talk about it. Members the amendment is been passed out I'll also let you know if you're looking at your devices on this bill there is also a legislative impact statement that's attached to this bill but with that being said representative for mac will recognize you to present The amendment to house bill twelve thirty six yes ma'am this is a an amendment that was brought by the FNA and we've been working on it quite awhile which is why it is so late in session here in this bill Basically it just just as a lot of uh. A clarity to how the process works and where we would fitting and should this bill pass is a. Lehman's example so I would appreciate a an adoption. Members we have the explanation of the amendment what are the wishes of the committee we have a motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion on the motion to adopt the amendment all in favor of the motion please say aye opposed say no the ayes have it represent will make you're recognized to present your bill as amended thank you ma'am of believe or not this is a very simple bill that has been before this committee in previous sessions at least once D. F. and they had some concerns with some manpower issues and just technically how this could work the state so so what the bill does is anybody that has a a judgment. Can get in line under. Things that the FNA already withhold income state income tax and put those people that have the judgments in line underwears order required by law that those. Moneys go first. And this amendment is pretty much in its entirety The the language that was necessary for the if I need to be comfortable and it's my understanding that there's no opposition to this bill. And I'm happy to take any questions. Represent college you're recognized for a question. thank you Medicare so I mean I guess just since we're just messing it is for our benefit again you kind of walk through what the new language is doing that if my request that I mean not necessarily technical aspects but sort of substantive aspects yes I will honestly it's pretty much all technical stuff just to cover for them to be comfortable that they're covered in a way in the law in in all areas of like to move mainly what this does is make sure that the D. F. and they have the authority to to with with hold it and keep it in the right order from the. And I'm sure you know more about this that there's already. There's an order established like when those monies come back that these have to be paid like child support one of them that would be the head is this basically just creates a lot of slot and puts. The person has a judgment at the bottom of the list. And makes the if this of this amendment to my understanding makes the up in a comparable that that they are covered. Under that and have the. The authority to. To move this to a new section I guess let me ask this were related questions if I may manager is there anything in this amended version that is more creditor friendly than it was before they go any further calendar does it kind of just limit things a little bit the. Redditor side you know I mean I'm because obviously the bills beneficial to creditors yeah yeah so the so is everything just kind of ran out in a little bit here and there and and just putting them in that order back in line yeah it's it's more friendly in the fact that it's an option on it hasn't been previously well sure right I understand that but I'm not about the cement which is your regional bill which I'd read. No I don't think so not at all matter fact it's probably with this this amendment also as a five hundred dollar limit so it might be less creditor friendly in that aspect okay. And there's a fee associated help definitely offset cost so those two things I would say not necessarily creditor friendly but the option to pursue this Avenue would make it so so maybe it's neutral I don't know how to answer exactly. Represent clan you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair I'm sorry because I know the question about to ask is often hard to answer but there's something that's taking me a little bit odd of abuse it sort of blending of private and public here right because we've got these private debts that are now kind of being intercepted by the state so can you just tell me if there are any other states that do this I mean is this is this precedent it elsewhere do not know okay just curious thank you represent guess what you're recognized for a question yeah thank you madam chair so it just. Trying to understand a bill which I think I do basically. this would allow private creditors on private debt so credit card for instance. who gets a judgment against someone to be able to make application to the state to intercept the person's income tax refund to help pay off. The credit card judgment essentially is that right yes Sir okay and that the historically has not been allowed is that right yes Sir and. I think you know when you talk about it puts them at the bottom of the basically there's an order of priority typically for judgments if the the state you know for instance bill back taxes to the state they're gonna get their money first if you owe back child support they'll get their money next and then if you had a private credit or they would be below the but provided a person didn't owe back taxes and didn't know back child support if you if somebody got sued on a credit card bill and didn't answer complaint which happens very. A very regularly in District Court some credit card company gets a judgment against someone and now they can just simply make application to the state and interceptor income tax under this bill is that that's how it would work right yes Sir okay. C. clan you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair this one quick is this fiscal impact still do you have everything in the fiscal impact of holds true post amendment in particular that by paying a fifty thousand dollar cost for additional staff the attorney of do not think that's the case but I'm very happy for you to bring if I the table asking should they want to. Stephan A. in the room. Thanks that it. It was my understanding that the Amendment sobs that thank you. Member center other questions. Seeing no further questions we have no one signed up to speak for against the bill representative will make you're recognized to close for your bill and I just again I appreciate the He said the committee and and to a representative has always question that that is the intent of the bill but I think more along the lines of of local business men and women that have. Small claims that are not small to either party but will make a big difference in their life. But also if they owe a debt to credit card company I have no issue with with the date been paid so I I view this is a good move and I appreciate a good vote. Members represent Womack as close for his bill with the wishes of the committee. Seeing no motion the bill has died for lack of motion. Thank you motion committee. A baby. Members if you will turn to. House Bill sixteen seventy eight House Bill sixteen seventy eight represent baby what you define yourself you're recognized to present your bill thank you madam chair representative Howard Beatty District ninety five I'm here today to present house bill sixteen seventy eight as an active in the law concerning applications for pardon commutation of sentence remission of fines forfeitures for and to authorized governor did an online application for pardon commutation of sentence and remission of fines forfeitures with prejudiced and for other purposes primarily this bill came from the from the point with the changes that were making in the criminal justice system and our current parole system to provide some assistance with the management of the number of submitted applications is some of those applications will probably increase to the governor to ask for a pardon or commutation and would give this would give the governor parole board or whatever entity that will be making the administrative front end decisions on clemency applications of the authority to remove review as many as possible I think in past administrations they had staff being available to to Review approximately ninety a month but many of those says one one case it was pointed out that the current standard is four years after the the date of the Nile our our date of application I just drew a blank on that one talking to you but you could have someone that one governor in their four year term the first four year term could see to and possibly three denials are applications come through for the same the same inmate just based on the timing of where they are in the. Osseous so what this bill would do is if you you go to page I think it's page four of the bill it would allow the governor To decide and deny an application with prejudice and what that would basically be saying is that based on the circumstances of the filing what's in there the governor makes the statement that there's nothing that is going to change my mind OWN on this application and and based on on that decision to deny it and then that person can reapply when there's a new governor in office so those are the basic axes of what this bill would do and I would encourage a good vote from the Committee represent County you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair representative Betty can you. This feels extremely subjective to be read to mean the nature of what you just said was the governor would look at this and say there is nothing that would change my mind can you talk about is there any guidance in this bill that I'm missing about what with prejudice means there is entirely subjective up to the governor and does this give kind of unlimited permission for a governor to deny every single claim before them with prejudice well I you know I may not answer is completely correctly but I think the process now they're multiple players in this process before that application gets to the governor but ultimately that decision is subjective and it is the decision of the governor to make the determination and all this is allowed them to do is add that extra step of of prejudice or without prejudice and and basically they don't have to see it again you know some some examples that were given to me someone that murder so why preach their children something along those lines they don't have to see that again and during the term of governor they could see that application up to two or three times I even with the four year wait that's in the law currently so it slows the process down and if if the governor decides they don't want to see that then I think this decision the governor should be allowed to make. What represent conjure recognized for a question thank you madam chair act I'm pretty sure that the calling just as bill the changes the lan from four years or five years also if I'm right about that it just feels like we're we're making these changes based on it's staffing and workload issues but I mean these are pardon applications in computation applications off and you know the only chance for these people to get you know any relief for their the rest of their life related but with the rest their time anyway my question though is mostly about the change you made here in the this section C. one A. were you all change it from four years from the date of filing the application to four years from the denial that seems to me like that shifts a lot of flexibility to again the the people reviewing and I mean if you take while I don't know how long you have to review these things but But you're you're looking at the data did not which is a lot longer period it could be a lot longer period and how long it takes so I I don't know it just it you can you talk about why that was moved from the date of that I'll to the date of the date application to the date at the now. I could. Give me just one second I can I can briefly speak to to that point Again I think the primary reason for that being there is a lot of times this application process started under another administration so the denial point is from the time that that governor actually which the the application to make the decision to do not so that's that's one of the the the reasons that that that that language was changed. So it keeps everything with that with the sitting governor. Okay if you need another follower okay if I could have I mean I. But if it's sitting there from before it doesn't really change you know. Who you governor doesn't really matter for starting the clock again I understand the club will be starting later based on the Nile and it will be on a application date right back to sleep I yeah I would agree with with your comments hardly okay. The president clearly do you have a question if. Represent Scott you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair I'm just for clarity am I reading it right so Senate governor has two terms in the inmate or whoever applies for the pardon. Maybe the first year of their term they're not eligible until year eight year nine possibly of a new governor. If the application is denied by the governor it is that that was denied with prejudice that would be the deal that is that would be a decision that the sitting governor makes that they there are no circumstances that would change their mind on the decision that they made on this applicant I don't believe this is something to be utilized often but it in in certain cases it would still be at the discretion of the governor. President Clinton you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair so just to follow up with representative Scott question at Baptist Medical she was saying that the person applied in your one of the governor's term but technically the person could applied two years prior it's when that when that when it was denied so somebody could theoretically if this passes goes the ten years between applications I mean I'm just saying that out but if you know it is it is eight years if the governor signs terms to terms after that person has filed an application would you agree. It. The numbers make sense with what you said I can I can argue with those numbers. The chair has a question it would be prejudicial I mean it have to be a denial with prejudice correct yes and if it's my understanding and I'm giving myself permission to ask a follow up It's my understanding what is happening now is someone could file. Follow for pardon start that application process it gets heard and then the family has to follow everything they have to come they have to do that and it may be a couple years two or three years down the road after they make that first application and their helpers say in year three year early year for it is denied that say not denied with prejudice it just gets denied then that inmate turns around and immediately filed another application isn't that what this is designed to try to slow down so that families not put into that position I'm just curious it is that that's some of the some of the races there also it is a slow process because of all the requirements notifications that have to take place from all involved parties this bill is just strictly to at you know tried to approach something that would lessen the that the load of of applications go from today I'll point and give the governor the opportunity to do not with prejudice instead of going to all those details to try to expedite the processing of the applications we just wanted to to go with the with prejudice and allow the governor to have that that line of authority and discretion. Scott you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair this my final question I apologize for my ignorance on this so. Can you tell me what's included on the application because I know we were talking about the previous process might have different information that comes before different bodies that actually make the decision for the pardon before it goes to the governor right for the final say. I I wish I could answer that question but I I cannot give you all the information that's included in that application sign I can answer that question as Watson Mr so I'm wondering if the current process allows for different members who make up the the parole board or whoever to see different information that might not necessarily be on just the application that the governor might get for a pardon I think they all see the same information I don't think there's any information that's not passing on to all all all individuals that would be making the decision and and for in that information on the governor okay thank you members any other questions. Seeing no further questions we have no one signed up to speak for against the bill representative Betty you're recognized close for your bill thank you madam chair again the the process and and the reason for this is simply to get to allow the the governor the option of the nine application with prejudice and I would encourage a do pass and thank you Committee. Members with the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass is there any discussion of the motion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it congratulations you have passed your bill thank you Committee. Right members we're going to take up represent Gazaway has a bill that's not been heard this session house bill fourteen fifty six represent guess what you're recognized committed in the table present your bill. There is an amendment. Members the amendments being passed out at this time. This fourteen fifty six. Members have a copy of the amendment at their deskripsi Gazaway you're recognized introduce yourself your gas that you have with you thank you madam chair and Jimmy Gazaway state representative district thirty one. I'm sending random the deputy director with the Arkansas state crime lab. I think that's what you're recognized. Thank you madam chair so members what you'll see in front of you is the amendment to house bill fourteen fifty six what you'll see. Is that we had a lot of co sponsors both Senate and house There's an amendment concerning fine language which is one million dollars which I'll get to an explanation of the bill. and then really the purpose of this amendment is to make this bill jive with the big criminal justice bill that's currently in the Senate just passed Senate Committee yesterday to be on the Senate floor today. And I have every expectation will make it to the house but basically concerning the eligibility for early release upon conviction of aggravated death by delivery predatory marketing a penalty minor's death by delivery in the first degree in death by delivery in the second degree which is all provided for in house bill fifteen fourteen fifty six so basically if the big crime bill passes that's in the Senate there are. Sensually four buckets if you will for terms for purposes of early release their defined in the big crime bill one there are felonies that are called felonies in eligible for early release that's one hundred percent time there's the next book is what they call restricted release felonies which is that a person convicted of one of those enumerated felonies would have to do eighty five percent of their time and then there's a fifty percent and a twenty five percent if you will that a person would only be eligible for release after having served fifty percent of their sentence and a person would only be eligible for release after having served twenty five percent of their sentence if they are on all of their early release credits what this amendment does is it says that aggravated death by delivery and predatory marketing a federal to minors will fall into the felony an eligible for earned release credits category which would be the one hundred percent category which means if you're convicted. Of aggravated death by delivery or predatory marketing a penalty minors you're going to have to do all of your time. this section seven relates to death by delivering the first degree and death by delivery in the second degree which is set out in this bill that would classify those offenses as a restricted release felony which means under the crime bill the if you were convicted of one of those offenses you would not be eligible for release until you had served eighty five percent of your time so that's what the amendment does and I'm happy to answer any questions members any questions on the amendment saying the questions you're recognized thank you manager I'm close for the amendment would make a motion to adopt the amendment the motion to adopt the amendment on the floor any discussion seeing no discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye any opposed say no the ayes have it the motion has been adopted the amendments have been adopted you're now recognized to present your bill as adopted and as amended thank you madam chair. Colleagues in the bill that you have before your house bill fourteen fifty six is the federal enforcement accountability act twenty twenty three as many of you may know we really have a crisis in the our country with respect to federal and the number of overdoses that are occurring because of fentanyl. Approximately two hundred people every day in the United States over overdosed on synthetic opioids as I've heard it described before that's the equivalent of a Boeing seven forty seven going down every single day in America and killing every person on board to represent the nature of the fentanyl crisis that we have. But no is an extremely dangerous and highly potent drugs it only takes micrograms the US let me say this penalties does ten micrograms which is a millionth of a gram so fennel has medical uses and is commonly used as a very powerful pain killer it's used in hospice adding some of cancer patients typically it's in the medical form is typically used in patches over an extended release period of time and again dosed and micrograms of the millionths of Graham to deliver that very powerful painkilling dosage but it only takes milligrams are at our deadly dose for. For most humans and so. it's extremely potent it's extremely deadly and and one example that I've seen I know we can't use props but one example that I've seen to illustrate just how deadly it is if you have a sweet low package which is one gram so sweet what packages the equivalent one grand view poor that Sweden one package out on the table that's enough fentanyl if it were professional that's not penalty kill five hundred people if that gives you any idea of just how deadly and help hope notice so. We passed a federal bill last session. classifying FOR a possession of fentanyl is a C. felony delivery of fentanyl is a Y. felony manufacture of fennel is a Y. felony attaching some of the most serious criminal penalties that we recognized Arkansas law to delivery manufacture and trafficking of fentanyl of those penalties for just delivering it trafficking at manufacturing it carry ten to forty or life is a Class Y. felony. What this bill does is it sets forth new crimes called death by delivery. And so to explain how that works basically I we set up a system where if someone knowingly delivers fentanyl. To another person and it causes that person's death because this is essentially poisoned that we're talking about. you can be guilty of the crime that we're calling death by delivery. All right we set up aggravated death by delivery which is knowingly delivering federal to another person that causes their death and if that person is a minor. That is an automatic life sentence so if you deliver fentanyl to a minor and it causes the minor's death it's an automatic life sentence if you deliver fentanyl to any other person who is not a minor and it causes their death we have essentially what we would call a super Y. felony so it's and it's an unclassified felony but the penalties are more harsh than even a Y. felony the minimum is twenty years the top range of the term of years and sixty years or life so the regular Class Y. felony is ten to forty year life if you deliver fentanyl to someone and it kills on that's twenty to sixty or life under this bill and again at the aggravated portion if you deliver federal to a minor and it causes the minor's death that's an automatic life sentence. A death by delivery in the first degree so what we see there is there are essentially four super drugs and crime lab can speak to this that are causing the majority of overdose deaths in this state but not methamphetamine heroin and cocaine. If you look at the crime lab reports the autopsies that they see those are the four drugs that are causing overwhelmingly the majority of deaths in the state so we in death by delivery in the first degree we deal with the other super drugs methamphetamine heroin and cocaine. And if you deliver methamphetamine heroin or cocaine to someone and they died because of the ingestion of those drugs that is a Class Y. felony that will carry a potential penalty of ten to forty or life. I think I just heard myself talking about the bill. It was interesting lightning right. So that would be death by delivery in the first degree. The death by delivery in the second degree. is any other substance that someone made a waiver that would cause a person's death that is it's not federal does not methamphetamine heroin or cocaine so any other controlled substance or counterfeit substance either because the person's death and there are varying degrees they can believe maybe in some cases if there are aggravating circumstances it can be in a felony if there are certain mitigating circumstances we make it a B. felony so for instance if the person doesn't have a prior felony conviction for delivery if they only played a minor a passive role in the delivery if they were unaware that the substance had a adulterants or dilutes at the time that they delivered it they contributed to the person's death. Or if it was not part of the transaction that was for the purpose of obtaining money. OR some other type of benefit. And so we make that a Class B. felony so we do recognize that in some instances there are some mitigating factors that might. might can lessen the penalty that should be impose their. It can be a Class Y. felony however. If there are certain factors that are proven beyond a reasonable doubt that would be that the defendant has a prior felony conviction. For delivery of a controlled substance or other similar lost another juror that another jurisdiction the point there being this is targeting drug dealers if you are a known drug dealer and your delivering these substances and it kills someone you're going to be on the hook for. if you've committed this delivery under circumstances that manifest extreme indifference to the value of human life or if you knew the victim was vulnerable because the victim was a minor was sixty years of age or was an incompetent person. We do write in some exception so we say that this does not have any effect on the Josh Lashley poly Act which is an act that we passed. A bill recently to provide certain communities to conduct the person. Is in possession of an illegal controlled substance but realizes that someone is overdosing and they call nine one one or law enforcement for help and they respond that person is given immunity we say that that still is in place under this bill. we also make of course certain exemptions for those who would legally possess but no because it is we go under some circumstances so doctors pharmacists manufacturers wholesalers hospitals anyone who would be and those who would transport for those companies. Those who be in legal possession or not violation of this law consensual ingestion is not a defense we set that out five ten two oh seven. Are these penalties are not exclusive to other penalties that a person may in current in the criminal code so even if you're not guilty of death by the liver you may be guilty of possession you may be guilty of other crimes that the correct that are recognized in the criminal code if you're not guilty of death by delivering. And then I we do make some exceptions and some we give some mitigating. evidence and and wait to if the person possesses the controlled substance only for personal use and then we set forth the list of factors that can be used by the judge or jury in determining about whether the person only possessed this for personal use. accomplice liability we address it an individual who is an accomplice to the delivery or conveyance is an accomplished for purposes of this section. section three of the bill exempts from the definition of drug paraphernalia disposable single use test strips thank you I can detect the presence of fennel fennel analogs in the purpose there being. while that may be considered paraphernalia we would rather people test and not die then worry about being in trouble for having testing strips. And so ultimately we want people we have and if that means that we have to exempt has been stripped from the definition of drug paraphernalia then we're going to do that. Section for the predatory marketing a federal to minors this is a real thing unfortunately there is what's been called rainbow fentanyl which is but no that's in the shape of candy has the color candy resembles SweeTarts another commonly candidates commonly marketed to minors. And we say that if you are a person who possesses the rainbow effect and all that is attractive to minors the resembles food or or other. candy for instance and your marketing that penalty minors that's an unclassified felony automatic life in prison and a million dollar fine section five addresses trafficking of fentanyl we make that an unclassified felony Not less than twenty five years no more than sixty or live in a million dollar fine the fifth most of the fentanyl that comes into this country is coming either from China or from Mexico. And they're bringing across the border and like I said it's killing people two hundred people approximately every day doctors overdosed on synthetic opioids if you're trafficking in this product you're going to do significant time and you're going to be. Find heavily. So. That's what the bill does and I'm happy to answer any questions members any questions represent college you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so I think you know my by biggest issue with all this is that were really not looking at the mental state of somebody when it comes to that the death they have to knowingly deliver or convey the fennel or other drug to another person but that's different from knowingly taking the person's life I mean they. Give me an example you've got two people to drug mules low level guys who each get a package Page drop it off two different homes One person drops back job someone who takes the time to read and they die and that person would get twenty to sixty year life and the other person who's person didn't take a lot and I would get ten to forty a lot so I mean that's on average should take the Midwest of the fifteen year difference in those two sentences for the exact same conduct conduct which of course is inexcusable I mean we we all agree fennel is a terrible Public Health surgeon and is killing people and and needs to be confronted seriously but delivery of fentanyl is already have now it's a very severe felony what's the difference that that in your opinion I mean what are we going to solve by tacking on those penalties for one person who has done the exact same thing with the exact same mental status the other person. Well it's a I mean I think the principal difference is that someone has died as a result of your conduct. And that is why we enhanced the penalties of course as you know delivery is already a Class Y. felony that's ten to forty year life so how do you up the ante for someone who delivers it and causes someone step in again I think really to your point would be the deterrent effect. Because if you just deliver it you're simply looking intended for your life but if you if you deliver it and you know that if being delivering it causes someone's death that you're gonna be looking at twenty to sixty year life I think that that's it's a deterrent effect for these drug dealers. To say you know maybe out of maybe it back up and find a new profession because the stuff that I'm dealing is is that the equivalent of poison and if it kills someone I'm gonna I'm gonna have to do significant time follow up to here recognized. I have a miniature well I think it's fair. Well okay in any of that sort of makes logical sense but is there evidence that you can point to that indicates that a longer sentence for a potential outcome that may or may not happen in the case of delivery I know that someone that does you can you show me that there's deterrent value there can you show me that that additional from ten forty twenty sixty something like that we want to get a really severe sentencing you're going to ten more years or fifteen more years on the back and is that actually determine what what what is the evidence show about that as an effective deterrent. So I think you ask a good question I think that the social science in this area is very difficult I mean we can asked similar questions about what's the deterrent value of the death penalty for instance was the deterrent value of long sentences with respect to any crime. And I think you know when you talk to social scientists who work in that area those are those are very difficult to ever determined you know what deterrent effect is the death penalty have well it's really hard to know the number of people who didn't commit. Because they knew the death penalty was was on the table I don't know how many people this terror because that's a very hard thing to study I don't know how many people it will deter by them knowing that they could be prosecuted for homicide offense if they deliver penalty kill someone but I think that we send a strong message to the public and course there was a big press conference about this and I think when the word gets out on the street because all these people run the same circles minute prosecutor long enough to know all these people know each other and I think when the word gets out on the street among drug dealers and the people who were involved in this world that you could be prosecuted for a homicide offense if you deliver that to someone and someone dies and they're gonna have to do twenty to sixty or life under those circumstances I think that will have a deterrent effect now cannot point to any specific study you know based on. you know some credible social science that shows the deterrent effect of this particular measure I don't have that with me and I think that's just a very difficult thing to measure but I do think this sends a strong message that will have a deterrent effect for people who deal this kind of poison in our communities yes. Represent Clowney you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair president Gazaway. Can you talk a little bit more about the knowingly piece so you know one of the things that we all obviously have come to learn about that now is that it is often and things without a lot of folks knowledge right and that it's it's used to strengthen other drugs so that they can the profit margins can be big on them. Knowingly delivers but not all did that knowingly in order to kind of bump up the penalties this person has to know that it is fat and all that they're delivering is that correct correct okay yes so it's not just the delivery it's the fact that the knowingly so absolutely for the aggravated death by the liver they have to act knowingly with respect to the fentanyl now when you get into counterfeit substances substances that they you know they thought they were delivering hydrocodone but had fentanyl in it and maybe that and they didn't know that I think that's going to fall under counterfeit substance which would be death by delivery in the second degree. Thank you. Members any other questions. Seeing no further questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill representative guess what you're recognized close for your bill manager and I'm sorry I had a witness here about I hope to give some testimony from the crime lab about. The. I don't know if it if you have something you have something you'd like to add will certainly. It just identify yourself for the record if you have something you'd like to add please anymore and deputy director of crime lab no I think he covered it really an emergency clauses to the amount and increase in fentanyl overdose deaths and five years ago we only saw eight last year we saw almost three hundred deaths attributed to fentanyl and so it is a real problem here in Arkansas. Members any questions of this witness saying the questions thank you for your testimony today represent guess what you're recognized close for your bill thank you manager and I think that. God tells the story just a few years ago they saw eight fentanyl deaths last year alone they saw over three hundred this is a real problem it's killing people in our state and those are just the best that the crime lab is aware of I want to be clear about that don't fool yourself and think that it's the on these are the only overdose deaths that are occurring are the ones at the crime lab knows about this is happening every day in communities all over the state. and we need to send a strong message that we are not going to tolerate people dealing in this type of poison on our streets and in our state so with that I'll make a motion to pass as amended is amended. We have a motion to do pass as amended on the floor is there any discussion of the motion. Seeing no discussion all in favor please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you passed your bill. Members the very next one we have on our agenda is house bill sixteen sixty three. It is also represented Gazaway. What represent gas waste gathering. His things come to the end of the table there is an amendment that they'll be passing out. And there is also a sentencing impacts with house bill sixteen sixty three so if you want to take a. We'll take a moment to get those passed out. It members what we take up sixteen sixty three then we will be moving to the second page of our agenda. The so right you know I don't like to waste time. Then we once again we'll have representative gas weighs bill them represent Duffield representative garner has requested to be this afternoon represent the flowers is requested to be this afternoon. Of the. Then we will be moving to to. She says. They will be moving to. Representive Underwood bill and representative Lundstrum the bill they're saying Lundstrum you may. Blake first up when we get back after session but you're you're up here and the Bill stamp. I believe the amendment has been passed out there's also as I indicated the impact statement represent Gazaway you're recognized to present the amendment to house bill sixteen sixty three. Thank you madam chair members the amendment to house bill sixteen sixty three simply adds co sponsors representative I do want to say As I meant to do this earlier but representative very and representative Lundstrum. work we're working on other bills related to fentanyl and came to me and and had offered good suggestions and comments on how to make the spent all bills that that we worked on good bills and so I want to create a knowledge or contributions to that and so this this amendment for this particular bill simply adds representative mark very as a co sponsor and then senator John Morrison sponsor ad make a motion document. Seeing no questions about the amendment are you making a motion to adopt your amendment represent Gazaway. Yes members we have a motion to adopt the amendment on the floor a discussion of the motion saying no discussion all in favor of adoption of the amendment police say aye. The end up of any knows Vice habit the motion has the adoption has. Whatever these are the amendments have been adopted I've got my word topic except represent guess what you're recognized to present House Bill sixteen sixty three as amended thank you madam chair I have with me here today prosecuting attorney dance year from Fort Smith and with the chairs permission I would ask that he be allowed to present on this bill. Yes certainly. My name's Daniel shoe I am the prosecuting attorney for the twelfth judicial district Sebastian County I'm also the legislative chair for the Arkansas prosecuting attorneys association I'm gonna read something of justice just one second and that is from it was both the times record and KHBS this is August twenty fourth two thousand twenty one two female inmates were found unresponsive not breathing and Sebastian County adult detention center detention deputies believe both were overdosing on fentanyl and nor can was administered successfully however most were transported to hospital statements from other inmates confirm that the inmates had obtained fentanyl when deputy detention deputies returned to the pilot area two deputies were overcome and likewise had to be transported to area hospitals finally a third innocent and met with regard to the possession suffered a reaction to the fentanyl still in the detention center and had to be transported to an area hospital as we've already heard testimony fentanyl is like I'm like any other drug it is the plutonium of the drug world it is so dangerous that it's fifty times stronger than heroin a hundred times stronger than morphine two micrograms of fentanyl can kill you this bill criminalise the knowingly exposure of third persons to that Fenton all exposed is specifically defined include skin tante contact inhalation ingestion contact with the needle stick on mucous membrane anything without limitation the mouth the eyes or the nose all citizens are protected by this the legislation private persons but in addition and most responsible I think by this body would be protection of our first responders firefighters EMTs pair police but it also includes because of this scenario just presented to you which was factual correction of facility workers it is the again it's in the title knowing that you have to do it knowingly is not. should have known it's you knowingly did you use you through the substance at a law enforcement officer or introduced into the facility and the with the other aspect of this if you will is I guess it was the last session I helped draft the drug paraphernalia bill that to change that and with regard to a visual criminals that possess drug paraphernalia and possess the substance were if the discounts for one for habitual criminal purposes likewise in this bill your possession of the Fenton on and this it won't make you a habitual criminal affect the they call occur it only counts as one so you're not you need a balanced approach and I can also report to use that to in my specialty court's both the. The court veterans treatment and mental health court fit no unfortunately is beginning to replace the other opioids and With that I'd be happy to answer any questions members any questions represent County you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair Mr sure I have a question about this knowingly exposing so I appreciate that it says knowingly but I guess I. That would seem to pretty much cover every scenario where somebody or somebody has been on their possession they would sort of automatically be knowingly exposing somebody else to it is that right and if not can you kind of clarified for me what knowingly expose it knowing exposure looks like well you're you're you're talking about that they would to attempt to throw it away and the officer gets to cloud from the. But not all this being thrown into the air so they don't possess it or it's it's an app and then the needle cap what and placed on the needle stick you ask am I gonna get stuck they say no you get stuck and you're exposed to fentanyl this have to be something extra Kerr. You're recognized thank you I'm an example that you gave Well it sounds like that that I mean can you explain a little bit more what it was that caused folks to act so far after the fact I think that's pretty unusual for what I've heard what what was so extreme about that that would have to raise the level of knowing exposure because it sounded to me like that was just used to fatten on and after the fact three additional people are hurt one of the they it's obviously secret on their bodies and they had put it in different areas of the sale you know that the detention deputies go back back in afterwards it's on substances lying there in the sale. It's residue left be on not just in their possession. Members any other questions. We have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representative Gazaway you're recognized close for your bill. Thank you madam chair I think this is another. you know this is another tool in a prosecutor's tool bag if you will to deal with fentanyl we just passed out of this committee I think one of the strongest laws. Now with respect to fennel maybe in the country. And this would be once again another tool to deal with a certain situations where someone is is knowingly exposing. Someone defend all who may not be delivering it as we just dealt with or Try you know causing someone's death with it which is which is the bill that we just passed so I think this is once again addresses kind of a separate separate type of situation and separate scenario but nevertheless is a good bill and so I make a motion to pass as amended as amended members we have a motion to do pass as amended on the floor is there any discussion on the motion. Seeing no discussion all in favor please say aye any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you passed your bill as amended. Okay thanks to. Members the next bill in line is house bill sixteen sixty five percent Gazaway House Bill sixteen sixty five. We have a sentencing impact statement that we're going to pass out so hang on just a few seconds. You. The sentencing impact statement has everybody now has that represent Gazaway you're recognized to present house bill sixteen sixty five. Thank you madam chair this is a bill that came to me from. Prosecuting attorney in the second judicial district where I live who. had. Receive some complaints about. Sex offenders on school property and. I ask me to run this bill basically and it's very simple it's simply says that if a person is required to register as a sex offender and due to the victim being under the age of eighteen if they'd been assessed as a level three or four sex offender and so let me be clear about that there four levels of sex offenders is level four which is a sexually violent predator. as ranked by the Sexual The sex offender assessment Order for committee who possesses these these folks level for sexually violent predator like level three once again is a is a serious sex offender who we should be concerned about any of the lower levels which are level two and level one this only applies to a level three or level four says your level three or four with the minor victim can't go on school property and it's as simple as that. Sure there any questions represent clan you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair absent guys M. sorry I missed this but this is only applied to the K. through twelve school not institutes of higher education is that correct. Public school campus my understanding it was this is a K. through twelve but. May include The manager would include preschools as well but I don't think includes higher education thank you I can check on that. I can answer that I've I read in this. Under lying bill three sessions ago was Senator Hickey and it was only K. through twelve. Members any other just have questions we do have someone is signed up to speak against the bill Mr Rosenstein you in the room. That I don't see if there's no one else who signed up to speak for. I'm sorry it is listed. Catherine buyer Bynum I'm sorry is final welcome to go to the end of the table to speak against the bill. I'm sorry we just didn't catch your name you're recognized was speak to identify yourself and you're recognized to speak against the bill. My name is Katherine Bynum and I'm here to speak against the bill I'm not sure if it's been amended but as it moves it's just says if the sex offense that requires the sex offender to register involved a victim under eighteen years of age OR the sex offender has been assesses level three or four so that leaves it open to ones and twos. And I'm not sure if that was the intent but that's how it reads Currently so and. I'm speaking today to give you a face of people that are affected by the registry on the registrant site my family is involved in this because we have a family member that's required to be on the registry so in effect that puts me and my children also on the registry and all of these laws that keep getting brought up and past affect me and my children proximity to locations where children are present including schools does not increase the risk of re offense for people that are on the registry restrictions on people with sexual offense history from being on school grounds specifically like this bill our foster care the measures that will the public into thinking that they are safe from harm the myth of stranger danger persists despite the fact that most sexual predators are known to their victims according to the department of justice most child sex abuse victims are molested by a family member thirty four percent of the time or close acquaintances which is fifty nine percent of the time so that's not in ninety three percent of cases it's someone known to the victim not a random stranger that just happens to be on the school grounds and that's from the bureau of justice statistics statistics additionally sex abuses most likely committed by first time offenders not people already on the registry merely allowing a person to be on school grounds does not affect increase their risk of re offending and. They're currently RSS by the assessment board and so if people that are level one or level to use were more dangerous by the assessment committee they could have made them level twos I mean they could have made them a level three or level four but for whatever reason they chose not to and then there are other avenues being utilized in Arkansas to keep people off of school grounds from the public safety secretary such as stipulations my role board parole officers for the sentencing court. So this bill limit limiting people that have children and grandchildren on schools limits their ability to have pro social relationships which is what we know reduces recidivism specifically if you're not gonna allow them with the car about to be able to go to Events that are ticketed to the public. People can go to those events and you're you're stopping that relationship. from a parent being able to go see their child playing a football game or play in the school play unless you have a school official that's going to be tied to them and escorting them to that event and we know. Schools do not have the the resources to provide an escort for every football game or school play that a parent or grandparent would want to attend. Seeing no questions thank you miss nine for your testimony today next we have to speak against the bill David Teague strategic if you'll come to the end of the table and state your name you're recognized to make your statement. My name is David. And I'm here I'm her father. You're recognized. In my career as a fire chief of city around here and packet here in central Arkansas. If I could. Outlaw barbecue grills. The pride and cigarettes. And get a city council say we're gonna sprinkle ever house I could do away with with the fire department because buyers would almost ceased to exist. But the people in that town would not want to live there. What I'm saying and I've been I've I've been involved in this for about six years five six years and what I continually see is every session. Three or four five or six bills come before and they're only minor changes. And but but they have a big impact on on the lives of the people who made a mistake messed up did something that most people hate but are we gonna. Punish them the the entire rest of their lives it and their children you know this this bill the way I read it says if you have a victim under eighteen. and regardless of your registration at or level that you can't go to the school so I think in Arkansas we've got about sixteen thousand people on the registry. About half of them. R. six thousand of them are so our our level ones another six thousand or two three four thousand eight R. three and and maybe a thousand or force but if you knock out the ones and twos that are able to go to stuff then you're probably going to be impacted may be. Twenty five or thirty thousand kids that their dad. Other mom won't be able to come to do a van and and I know that I spend with my grandsons not having their father I know that's a. I know how they how they felt and I just I don't want to see it for them but I don't want to see it for somebody else and and I just. And my instructor when I thought fire stuff I tell stories I want to just tell you a quick story. Forgotten the fire service I was doing roofing and I was that the tire dealer one time say and what I need to pay this extra money for these heavy duty tires I don't need him whatever and and his response to me was that you've got a tool box on your truck every time you finish the job you throw for five males in their when you finish the issues for five more Bucks or whatever he says you never claimed that tool box out and eventually you need these heavier duty tires just because you keep that in. I would just urge opted not just keep an Because it's already hard enough to be on the registry and and I think representative Gazaway said somebody was just complaining because I saw a person at that at a school I think in the impact statement if I'm not mistaken in the last three years there's been for people that would have been level threes or fours that have been call or broke this law at a school so I don't understand why we want to change anything. If we're going to affect the twenty or thirty thousand kids when we only had four instances of somebody get caught at school and not be glad to answer questions you have members any questions sing no question thank you Mr T. for being here today. We have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill represent guess what you're recognized close for your bill thank you madam chair I do want to point out to the committee I was pointed out to me that the or there that actually should have been and. that in order for this to apply it should be that the sex offense that requires the sex offender to register under the Sex spend registration act involved a victim under eighteen and they've been assessed a level three or four that that should have been a and and I've committed to make that change that will be amended on the Senate in hopefully we could still get this through before the session ends but that will be change that was the intention of the bill. And I will I will go back and note the level three means that a high risk of re offending that's what level three means and level four is a sexually violent predator I mean just say I have I do have sympathy. For people who want to go up to the school and see a relative participate in an event I have sympathy for that but you know when you do certain things in this society you give up certain rights and when you commit a felony for a period of time you lose your right to vote you lose your right to own possess firearm we put people come into this committee talking about that they you know after a period of time with their offense was not about maybe they ought to be able to get there gun rights back well let me tell you this if you molest a child you lose your right to go into a school campus with a bunch of children and I'm sorry but that's just that's just how it should be. And that's that's the purpose of this bill and with that I'll make a motion. If you want to amend this. You're going to have to do it today with that and and we can come back and if if that's what you wanna do come back with the and because if you try to amended on the other end it will not come back to us so it's up to you if you will take that shot and thank but it's my understanding you will not get back to us to concur in in the Senate in the Senate amendment yes represent you had to have a question yeah I am thank you madam chair I I remember the other day there was the opportunity for someone to come in and have an amended while we waited and took up other bills would representative Gazaway be able to do that because I'm going to come back after session as much as I hate to and I know that don't want to go home and I want to go home but we're just going to have to come back after session so would you want us to just. Hold off on anything on that to make your amendment absolutely. All right we will not take any additional testimony on this bill but we'll come back and you request your drafter to then make that amendment represented Gazaway while I have you. At the end of the table have you captured because you've indicated to me and I see a number of people who are here in regard to House Bill fifteen thirty yes house bill fifteen thirty will you please make the announcmenet you've indicated to me that you wish to do yes thank you madam chair I would move that this be referred to an interim study. Members represented Gazaway in work in regard to House Bill fifteen thirty is moving that will be requesting in the committee to move it interim study is there any objection seem no objection you can file the appropriate paperwork to move that to interim study so if you were here for house bill fifteen thirty you can rest assured that we will not be hearing fifteen thirty today. The road. Take you up. Members turned to sixteen forty seven sixteen forty seven representive road when you get to them the table please state your name and you'll be recognized to present your bill house bill sixteen forty seven. Yes ma'am thank you madam chair at this time I'd like to invite assistant Attorney General Adam Jackson to the table to share his expertise on this as well police. Mister Jackson what you mean the table if you will benefit by yourself and we will be through with that party on the present the bill. Thank you madam chair may assistant training general Adam Jackson office of the Attorney General criminal division thank you representative press you're recognized yes ma'am thank you madam chair thank you committee members am honored to present house bill sixteen forty seven bill that addresses a sensitive and serious issue that requires our immediate attention I'm grateful for the opportunity to present this vital piece of legislation to you House Bill sixteen forty seven is to create the offense of offensive relations with a child. it seeks to create a new criminal offense in Arkansas that specifically addresses inappropriate behavior towards children. This bill defines offensive relations as an adult twenty one years or older knowingly placing one's open mouth on the mouth of a child thirteen years of age or younger with the purpose of enticement or inducement to engage in sexual intercourse deviate sexual activity or sexual contact as defined as code five dash fourteen dash one oh one under this bill individuals who engage in offensive relations with the child would face a Class a misdemeanor charge it's important to note that this bill does not replace existing laws related to sexual assault or abuse of minors instead it seeks to provide an additional tool for law enforcement and prosecutors to hold offenders accountable for their actions this issue was originally brought to me locally by detective with the Van Buren police department name Jay Baker also Crawford County sheriff Daniel Perry and Crawford County prosecuting attorney Kevin Holmes they discovered a gap in a law when they were and unable to adequately charge a thirty four year old adult who is capped who is caught open mouth kissing a thirteen year old child following that a second similar case came out of sheriff's office that they were unable to prosecute adequately as well. It is concerning that we do not have a strong statute for this offense although it is rare in situations like this that further sexual contact does not take place it is still alarming enough that we should address it legislatively this behavior is taking advantage of children those who are like likely to be the most vulnerable it is crucial that we provide them with the necessary protections against any form of inappropriate conduct I believe that house bill sixteen forty seven will play a crucial role in protecting our children by making it clear that any form of inappropriate conduct towards children is absolutely unacceptable I'd also like to add that the Arkansas sheriff's association supports this bill and I urge all of you and joining me to make sure that our state is safer for children I thank you for your time and attention and I'm glad to answer any questions or any questions. Seeing the questions Mister Jackson's or anything you wish to add. Another item generally just here to support representive road and keep in field any questions from the committee. Seeing the questions we have no one signed up to speak for against the bill representative race you're recognized close for your bill yes ma'am sure I'm close to this bill. Members represent road is closed the bill with the wishes the committee of a motion to do pass on the table was there any discussion of the motion. Say no discussion all in favor of the motion did pass please say aye any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you have passed your bill thank you committee thank you have a chair. Lundstrum would you like to come in the table present house bill thirteen thirty nine. Thirteen thirty nine. The last bill before we take a break for single engine you're recognized president house bill thirteen thirty nine. Thank you colleagues. House bill thirteen thirty nine is the statutory rule against perpetuities we've discussed this before this is extending it out to three hundred sixty five years this basically allow someone to hold the property in a trust this is about competition in Arkansas this would allow us to compete with states like Utah and Wyoming and North Dakota and South Dakota. And encourage investment in Arkansas and encourage others to invest in Arkansas which I think is extremely important with that I'll open it up and any questions members are there any questions. Senate questions represent younger you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair a represent London with with this which I'm not that familiar does this deal more with money in accounts are actually like real estate holdings all of the above this is about financial holdings as well as money and also this allows the investor to gives for example twenty or thirty million dollars to a hospital and make sure that it stays going to the hospital or for example there was a small investor here the last time we present this bill who had been given a million dollars anyone to make sure it went to their great great grandchildren and pay for their college education so it's. But sadly they went to visit with that attorney in California the super you from this in Arkansas this we don't want you to do this don't go back to Arkansas don't go to California but by the way you time North Dakota South Dakota and they're from Arkansas. And that's not what we want to do we want our folks to stay in Arkansas and invest in Arkansas. This is this is about competition we want to compete to have that money stay here. Members any other questions saying no further questions with no one signed up to speak for against the bill Is closed for a bill with the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass is there any discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion say aye. If the opposing of. The eyes have it congratulations you've passed your bill thank you colleagues thank you so Representative. The representative mix. The representative next. While. Represent the Richmond. Representative to Richmond. Representative Gazaway. Representative Gazaway. Representative Watson represented Watson yes. Representative Crawford. Representative Crawford. Representative Scott. Representative Scott. Representative Clowney. Representative Clowney no. Representative Cooper. Represented Cooper yes representative Richardson. Representative director sent. Representative Collins. Representative Collins. Represent the McCollum. Representative McCullough. Representative Hudson representive Hudson yes represent the Millikin. Senate Amendment getting yes representative will represent Underwood yes representative more. Representative more. Representative Duffield yes representative Duffield yes. Representative under yes represent under yes. Representative Pearce representative peers yes. Representative very. You represent a very yes. Bills failed thank you colleagues. All right members we're at the point that. We're going to take a break. Because we have to be in session and I want you all to have plenty to eat because I know we're not meeting on the House floor tomorrow the folks we got to come back in here because that's the only way I House members will have an opportunity to have their bills heard this session. So with that we are in recess until ten minutes after the Germans so y'all scurry back so we can get going thank you.