Judiciary Committee - Senate

Senator Solomon you're recognized. Senate bill one illegal in district twenty forces just to concurring amendment I sent my Senate bill eighty one down to the the house and they took time to amend it which I appreciate greatly and it was a good amendment and you all know how easy it I am to get along with so I agree with that now we're back here to get through here to get to the floor so with that I'm close. Our. Any questions from committee. You have a motion we have a motion and a second discussion on the motion. Saying none all in favor say aye. All opposed. You member passes thank you Mr chairman thank you Committee. Senator I don't get senator king is here. The. Centered a representative Dalby you have two minutes. House. Yeah. We have not received those members back from the bureau so we'll wait a few minutes for those anyone of. Sentimento. City attorney Conway. One archer founder of women sellers. All right represent five you're recognized the Bill. Thank you Mr chairman I'm very excited about this bill which passed through the house Judiciary with one hundred percent support and passed unanimously on the floor of the house what we are seeking to do here is to give victims of a Class a misdemeanor which is you know is the most serious classification the same rights that victims of the felony have specifically for victims of domestic violence you need to have certain protections and I'm going to ask my my witnesses to expand on this. Yes so the current Arkansas victim Rights Act has some very basic protections for the. Victims of crime and to be present at any proceeding where the defendant has a right to be present to submit a victim impact statement have the right to basic privacy and the right to be informed about the proceedings against the offender what would that current law though limited to for example and domestic battery only those who suffer serious permanent physical injuries what this would do would would provide extend those protections to those who are not as seriously injured but are nevertheless hurt and it really just basic protections mainly the right to be heard the right to be seen and in a statement that what happened to that matters. And I'd like to add that over three thousand survivors of domestic violence reach out to our courts for orders of protection and if this amendment is Granted they will be able to get the information from the court in the police that they need to not go back to that abusive relationship and move forward prosper in our state. Part committee you. Your next question the bill or any questions. Anyone in the audience that wish to speak for against the bill. Saying none representative body you will. Close for your bill I am close to the billing would appreciate a good vote. All right. Sure would. We have a motion to pass. Per second. We have a second any discussion. All the favor say aye. All opposed. The Bill pass road fifty five you want to go in president Senator House Bill fifteen sixty one. Yes thank you Mr chairman thank you committee members for that good vote. The second bill I'm bringing you today concerns highway safety and as you probably saw in the news over the weekend we had an incident in Maryland where I believe five hi what people that were doing their job. In a construction zone in the highway for hit and killed. And so this is we wanted to do something to help with the situation in our state may I bring my witnesses to the table on this bill your sorry **** get to step. I'm Brian McMillan I'm a project engineer for George contracting and the agency how we committee. This bill was brought to me by a constituent her father was just doing his job of the six thirty in Little here in Little Rock. And he was struck and killed. By someone who was going to the construction zone at a high rate of speed not paying attention to all of the warnings I submitted this as an interim study proposal to the transportation committee and your representative Gazaway was working on a similar bill so he joined forces with me and he had someone in his district that had also faced the same situation. What we're doing is saying if you hit someone and highway work zone and they're insured that is a Class se misdemeanor if you hit and kill someone in highway work zone that is a Class C. felony this would be in addition to all other charges. A. You know that the increase in work zone incidents accidents and fatalities are really increasing at a. staggering percent I think taxes have increased seventy percent of the counties of increased forty six percent and works on that's just in our state miss a nationally that's what problem that the the we're all struggling with I know as an industry we we will work on this all the time of how we can improve works on safeties I know one of our members who's doing the I. thirty overlay work at night that had more accidents and incidents on this one job the name had been or company in the last I think five six seven years so it's and it to something more battle with all the time and we really appreciate your help in trying to. More than anything change the behavior of the people who are enters these work cells and to eliminate the impaired and really more importantly the distracted driving in these work zones so we really appreciate your support. There is there is no law existing. That pertains to this there's no existing law that pertains to the there are laws that we are wanting to strengthen those laws your distant handling we are enhancing rally yes we're wanting people to think once think twice take they think three times is it worth looking at myself on is it worth going a little bit faster if I may hit and injure or kill someone I think you probably also in the signs as you go through Oklahoma this state don't hit our workers don't pay ten thousand dollars. We just are wanting to make people more aware and think about if they're not concerned about the safety of the workers there at least they might think is it worth it getting this type of penalty is upon the only state that is enhanced penalties for no there there are several I'm sorry I don't have that number with me right now but there are a number of states that are enhancing their penalties because as my witness said it's a major problem all over in Arkansas is one of the few states that during codes that are accidents increased and our Road construction zones rather than decreasing when we were driving less we had more accidents there in very serious ones. I Mark Senator Clark if questions yes thank you Mr of could you. give me those percentages again. On the increases I believe accidents this is from our department seventy percent increase in twenty twenty are to counties went up forty six percent. Now was there in a couple years old that's pretty startling that we had less drivers and we were up for sixty went from. Where had that no. Was was this national leaders in this is in Arkansas so how many how many workers were killed in two thousand twenty one of forty six percent. When we had nineteen. We had not went from thirteen. In twenty nineteen to nineteen to twenty twenty we had nineteen. Highway construction workers killed. In two thousand twenty. And we had thirteen and. I believe that's correct yes. Mr chairman would you like me to bring someone from are not to the table. Yeah do you have any more questions Senator. A I do of men that that seems. Terribly hot of and I'm I'm kind of confused as to why it's not in the news. The and you said this one contractor said that there are incidents were of how much this year. Of the department's reporting seventy percent yeah but you mentioned I thought you mentioned how we contractor in particular who said that there incidental stacks there I mean I don't think they have a number for it but that's what they have encountered on the I. thirty work that you're doing at night in this been going on since I'm kind of guessing here since maybe what early fall when I started at work with water we referred to as an incident well there's there's several Drivers getting behind the very well that's the thing that were utilized they get behind a very low they're not paying attention you behind but that's what happened one in Maryland just last week what I think was actually six people now that got killed last week because a car got behind it just ran through that's a very specific One pastor car internal works on travel on direction more than sixty miles an hour it worker and are not inspector. three drunk drivers it's very wall different times high speed chases through the work zone. okay we'll let me start this a second high speed chases. There's a lot to laws there I'm assuming DWI. I'm assuming those are. A. It in with a new penalty do you think a new penalty for high speed chases or B. to B. I do think that they would change the one. I do I think that it would Jett I know. Myself when I'm driving and see those signs don't hit our workers don't pay ten thousand dollars it makes me slow way down but I'm not talking about your committee representative part of town but somebody involved in a high speed chase I think that knowing going through a work zone is going to be an enhanced penalty we're going to plan to put a lot of publicity on that that it would make even those people think is this worth it maybe I should just stop. The I would like to yeah I'd like to for more dot to because I'd like to know how many of these incidents are high speed chases the of the Oct of the central part a fart out would go to have the title someone from are not. Your. I would like to say that. I think the the impaired driving drunk driving is probably not going to be the change the biggest fear that we have now or people on cell phones that's the biggest thing that we're going to change because right now as I understand it if somebody's on this if they can prove it which is hard there's not enhancement if they were to kill somebody. I'm a tell you used to be at night where a lot of these contractors have to work to try to minimize the impact the travel public so they do the work and not is very dangerous used to be the workers would look down and try to watch for cars that were sworn we thought the return that's not even that's not this much of it prevalence anymore it's what they call the glowing drivers they look for the glowing drivers because that's where the car at night it's dark and often they see is a glow on the driver's faces and they know those people on phones and not paying attention and that scares us more than anything else there's not anything we've got to change that behavior and then I'll take this that's not even just for our workers that's for all the other people who are driving around on these specialties construction zone for you have back ups we have wine changes that I will tell you probably seventy five percent of the accidents that happen or other people in the queues that somebody just ran up and hit someone never saw. That's what we're trying to change trying to change people's attitude about how the universe works. Gentleman from or not would you like to. Introduce yourself recognized several for the record and then you're recognized Speaker thank you. yes Sir Mr chairman my name is Jeff homes on the chief of the highway police division of the Arkansas department of transportation. Or do you have anything to add to this well I can echo what the gentleman said the highway work zone deaths are increasing distracted driving and speeding is the main reason of that and and you know that our daughter who are trying to do everything we can to reduce. those deaths and tragedies. And and would you concur that cell phones are a big part of that I yes Sir cell phones distracted driving texting speeding all those things factor into the increase and and working alongside of. March is any other questions Senator Clark you're recognized yes do you have any of that was nineteen of. How we workers and two thousand twenty that were I would construction workers that were killed in two thousand twenty. It's my understanding that was for talent these in work zones I don't have the exact number of highway workers that were that were killed in work zones in two thousand twenty. I don't have that information since the war the purpose is to protect. Construction workers I mean nineteen seemed really hop what you said seems more likely for talent these which berry will would be the people who were driving the vehicles of. I would really. I mean I don't think there's a questionnaire by most protect highway construction workers I don't like to pass law on a motion of of so. The do you have a break down surely all the. Of of these accidents and traffic zones in the percentages that are. What the how many there are. And. What's called for the city to be a high speed chase distracted driving the should have all that including Patel to draw. Yes Sir we should have all that how long would it take us to get that information it shouldn't take long at all I'm I would like to see. Are you would get senator Clark would. Much appreciate any other questions from committee members to rise. Mr. Keep these with this is a tie vote we have somebody here from our to the conduct about projects that that this relates to. Anyone here from mark dot. But overall control of the overall construction. That would be able to weigh in. No wonder. Okay let me go ahead and ask you a question one as senator Clark said we're all interested safety for construction workers or interest in safety for other drivers on the road. Do you have a break down on the impaired verses distracted driving. You want to go the other gentleman. Region that on the front you know senator I do not have it with me okay It cheap phones own. Violations in general thank you misstated. Of our it would you say driving is more aggressive than you've ever seen it. There is no doubt that sense COVID driving is more aggressive than it's ever been okay. And what I wanted to ask for our dot in construction related this gentleman in the type of may be but I I actual to your heart out. Going to the National in recent years You go through miles and miles of construction zone that there's been no activity for a good deal of time I know there's reasons for that probably monetary reasons for that. But some of that you you will hear back from drivers that that you get the back up there's nothing going on in those areas but yet the violation this increase violation is going to be anywhere in that because it's still a construction zone. And I can't remember the number of miles are clocked at one time do you feel like that could be some of the things that. That people a mixed message when they're in a loan construction zone. That there's compact it's not like this I thirty out here it's compact when you start getting into it you better state closed out all the way through this that you understand what I'm talking about on those long construction zones Senator this would only this bill would on the day if you hit someone I realize shall someone so it in the air but this is. There is a problem psychologically when you're having to drive through miles and miles of the over there's absolutely nothing going no everybody speeds up in it then you hit that work area again. I'm I'm wondering what I'm if there's any way in construction To change that that was the only my question is not the fact that the other day to go to something else. If you're. If you want to fix something you mention Oklahoma as a sign that says don't get fined in thousand dollars. Education I think is a lot of it you can put a Class D. felony. Class D. felony any kind of family and with this part of this I as even on having your cell phone until it gets real to people and it's usually too late sept or somethings are after one I could use get a ticket or two they could actually hit and injure kill somebody. We're either going to have to do a better job. Two. Make it real to people. And I'd hate to go to this because people have to have transportation work but I'm talking about even on the offense if we're serious about it. Shutter driving off. Latest be for for three days or week the first time if they got got phone at I probably get shut down some time I try to be say. But in a work area it is we're all saying it's more important. So I don't think I'm going to vote for the bill. Expect to. But I don't think it's real too we can get it to the people and get it in their head how serious this is. I would agree and say that we do need to do a publicity campaign by the television radio social media getting the word out and I believe our god is willing to work with with us to get that accomplished I think this bill would be an important part of that we had one bill earlier in the session regarding distracted driving and I checked with the all the sponsor of that bill and she felt this was a good companion bill to that that bill of increasing the penalties for distracted driving in any clothes in and it is one thing I question are not only when they come before council a lot a city you know whether I'll or asking first to see the million dollar two million dollars or a million dollars from the federal government I said what did you agree to to get that money. And on the it makes good sense safety what are the technical details technical details is to reduce injury and death that's great but if you gonna chase down people list educate on. Some first if we're going to put more teeth in the law let's try to educate them and and it's not just a not that we're doing it for a gotcha trying to save lives would you you gotta let him know that I don't know what I'm saying joda NO one. the the. Class of the bill that you're encouraging here they know if they're going to lose your driving privileges they know if they're gonna lose their license they know if they're going to it's going to be serious but I I think we've got to help educate people in it and I know their safety and I see Gillam we're first time I've seen I let him at the table but. We we get some federal dollars even for that in and I know there's some done but I I I don't think we're connected people I don't know it can be done anymore people people are just more aggressive in the retail business I'm saying it I'm here to everybody I talk to which you will have to do something to get your attention so I would just encourage if we're going to pass this is for are not come alone try to educate the. That's that's more statement that was question thank you senator rice you know you know I will I would like to say used the words. You keep referencing COVID this is all star distance covered what would COVID have to do with people getting over in a work zone and killing people. I think it's just the fact that we were supposed to have less drivers on the road during those times since for a lot of business account and we had more talent Easter night year that was the whole point let me tell you whatever the media then I went to the hot springs a championship basketball games to watch my home team plays county line and while I was coming back on I. Thirty. There were six vehicles passed me five taxes one from Mexico. None of from Arkansas and I see that more and more as I come to little rock and Fort Smith more and more out of state drivers and a lot a lot high percentage of those from Texas. In the morning how many of these people that are driving. Actually have a license. An Arkansas driver's license. Because some of these people were doing some pretty strange things I was in the one line and they would not let me over into the lane. And we were and concrete barriers on both sides with about a foot and a half and a I felt like I was gonna get run into on the concrete barriers by these people from Texas and New Mexico and I wonder what they're so there seems to be something else going on in our country decides I don't think COVID plays any part in in someone driving over to a work zone. That Mister Rogers come to the table yes bill if you would like to go down and comment on this. Because this is happening all over the country this is not just Arkansas that's probably outside the scope of this bill but I'd like Mister Rogers to speak amendment. I don't know that I deal if you want to recognize yourself for the record yes Sir go Rogers with the Arkansas department transportation on the government relations officer for the department and I would just want to say a few things I don't know that we can speak to the reasons why people are behaving the way they are in work zones outside of work zones I know state police have lamented the fact that we've had almost a one hundred percent increase in speeding tickets for over one hundred miles an hour since the pandemic began I think it may have as Senator Rice said maybe result people just being more aggressive in these times I'm not certain where that aggression comes from I do want to say that this bill is not just about the workers although the workers are very important to the department of transportation to our contractors but it's people as well passengers and drivers just like you Senator Stubblefield when you're when you're in those work zones you're concerned about rugby and run into a wall of those injuries would be covered as well not just those that happen to workers so if you're involved in an accident that involved personal injury or death it doesn't matter if it's a worker's death or your passengers death if you're misbehaving at the time of the accident you receive citation for that uh then you will be penalized and that I can't imagine I don't know what the specifics would be for the department of transportation in making sure that education happens but I mean this is something that the Department once it's something that our stakeholders one and I cannot imagine that we would not be involved in opportunities to educate the public both in general through advertising campaigns as well as in the lead ups to those signs that the the representative fight talks about don't don't injure our workers don't pay ten thousand dollars that type of thing those are all the because the goal is to prevent injuries here of people both involved in performing work and those of driving through those zones. Part any anyone else have anything to add to that Senator Clark. The of okay this was one of first herded understand reddit the understood this was about safety for highway construction. The bill you said whilst not. Just that it's for everybody. The. And this is something everybody wants but we again we like to have facts not what everybody wants the. But. For my education a control construction zone. Is the whole area presence coming from. Lonsdale. I get on thirty. What would be exit one eleven. Come up and it says as you're coming in right there your internet construction. K. most days and nights I don't encounter in school construction. Four miles. I Mark. Am I correct. I would assume I mean you're that is what your experience has been I don't have anymore but on the contrary bill I don't encounter construction for malls but anywhere from the time I hit that sun that's where these numbers are going to come from. Is if there's there's some kind of accident right there at the beginning of the constructions all eight miles from where there's actual construction going on actual work going on. Then these these numbers are going to include that right. That that would be correct center okay because I just I mean when I do things I want to be clear on what it is I'm doing and because it so it are there actual numbers then let me come back or the actual numbers for. The accident six approved where there's actual construction happening do you have a you have a break down there. Senator I think they would all do show in the work zone at all just showing the word so no matter how long it is like Senator Rice talk about what we do even though there may not have been any work going on there for a long time. If it's a construct and it puts a construction loan than it's it's in these these numbers yes Sir I believe that be correct but it but you also will help order they are. As far as for the location of the crash yes yes Sir. I just I just like to do things on a factual basis and I would I would like to see some more facts and I really am curious now because I mean losing one construction worker is not. No the anymore than losing a state trooper was an apartment or or lose anyone is that's not that's in the That we can agree to but I'd like to know now what the actual numbers all because the numbers that we first received were alarming. And would like to I would like to have some facts so I know what it is I'm actually working on. Milk and we can provide those to use quality like many of the questions from committee members. Is there is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for against the bill. Representative to fight are you ready to close for you will. In closing I would just say that Arkansas is one of the few states that has had more high more highway accidents than ever before. The in many of our states the number of accidents in work zones went down in Arkansas they have increased I believe this is a good bill. That will help our situation. There's no known opposition to the bill it's been out there a long time as I said it was an interim study proposal before I brought it is a bill and them so would appreciate a good vote our our German of chairman entertain a motion. Motion we have a motion to pass we have second. We have a second any discussion. All those in favor say aye All opposed. The Bill pass your bill passed represent five graduation thank you Mr chair thank you committee members. Before we go on to the next one I want to introduce three pages we have a pager for Senator Leding Nolan Hinkson. No one if you want to step out there for second. And we have a wide treat who is Senator orange Page. And wapiti Medford senator king. Sorry you had to live by Senator king up there. Thank you thank you for being here today. All right. C.. Dalby sorry we're ready for you now. What you have an amendment you wanna explain. Yes Mister chairman Carol Dalby D. twenty two house bill fifteen twenty two Carol Dalby district one hundred There are two amendments of which Senator Stubblefield assigned there his amendment ten are the sponsors of this bill the first amendment is in regard to Pike County and so they're asking for a change there on page eleven of for Pike County and then over on page fourteen Stone County has requested a change of and I think those amendments are before you there very self explanatory but both of those amendments are coming from those two different counties. W. you have to amendments we have to amendments on this yes yes Sir. Okay art Senate. For any questions on the amendment we have a we have a motion to pass amendments adopted amendments. I have a second all the favor say aye aye aye All opposed nay the minister may passed thank you Mr chair members of the committee this is a bill that you see every session that comes to you this is in regard to the salaries of the various District Court personnel is those of you have been on this committee before no the process this bill get sent out to all the different district judges in the counties throughout the state she usually sent out December so they have plenty of time to look at it then they come back and make suggestions or make their changes of how they want to fund those different court personnel and so this bill then what sick gets put into a bill form I then have it sitting on my desk for a couple of weeks over in the house to make an announcmenet for house members to double check it of for anything that they may have heard from any of their counties as to any changes we just incorporate whatever the county so this bill is a reflection of what the various counties how they want to operate their District Court and pay their District Court personnel and without I'll be happy to answer any questions March German here heard exposure to build any questions from committee. Senator Clark you're recognized former quorum court member of. Representative Dalby could you educate me on why we have to do this and state law this. Assume it's required it is required it it from what I understand Senator Clark the history of why this is done is as you know having been chair for a number of years these District Court started out as municipal courts or county courts and then they start being transferred over to being state District Court and some of these counties what share and so that the it's a way for its Britain in all how they're going to play that percentage well I could Miller County when I was a district judge part of the city the city paid for part of it the county paid for part of it and I think just probably historically it was just a way to keep that in fighting from happening that it sent out here on everybody knows this is how you're going to pay for those folks I would anticipate that at some point in time when all these district courts become state district courts there may not be a need for this bill but we're still in that transition period we still have a courts that are being shared that that that would be my best my best explanation for that well I appreciate the of explanation and these bills make me feel somewhat what like I'm still in the quorum court just rubber stamping whatever other people decide so that I understand I tend to agree with you there Senator thank you any other questions from committee. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for against the bill. You saying on the chair will entertain a motion. We have a motion to pass and we have a second any discussion. As amended. All those in favor of a passage of fifteen twenty two is amended say aye All opposed. The Bill pass to Dalby thank you both thank you thank you Dalby so but I appreciate I appreciate either way but thank you so much a chair and thank you members of the committee thank. Senator Penzo your senate bill four zero eight with an amendment. I want to go and explain the amendment. Thank you Mr I'd like to bring it J. P. travel to Introduced the amendment. Are you an interview sure so for the record Mister bill good morning Mr chairman name is J. P. trouble I'm an attorney here in Little Rock specializing in family permission The Amendment that the Amendment to Senate bill four oh eight is actually striking two sections of the original bill which effectively have been addressed by a house bill that's been signed into law by the governor and it adds this section that will I will come back and explain in a minute how it interacts with the rest of the bill but it. The fictive leave makes a correction in another part of the law to be consistent with the rest of the proposed bill. Okay. What you're recognized explain the bill okay Senate so the bill the bill is largely a cleanup bill if if you'll permit me it makes sense to skip around sections a little bit section one in eight are very straightforward they effectively repeal nine nine two twenty three in the Arkansas code which. Based on and in the law of nine nine to fifteen conflicts it conflicts with nine nine to fifteen. And. This stated under ACT eight eighty nine of nineteen ninety five anything that conflicts with that should be repealed so that's actually affecting the repeal section two addresses the withdrawal period when a parent consent for person consents to an adoption. And there's an absurdity that's arisen in the law where if you have an adult adoption and the adult is being adopted let's set by step parent the step parent under current law may request the court to excuse their can that withdrawal period if their consent. The adult adoptee being an adult must consent to their own adoption and they don't have the right to request that the withdrawal period be excused it's just crazy that does the step parent made the petitioner may request the pardon me the biological parent when the stepparent is adopting may request an excusal. But the adopted himself may not. So that's all section two does it brings. Those ideas online section three it under in a petition for adoption it's required that the property of the adoptee be stated in the petition and this pertains primarily to minors where for example if you look at guardianship law when you petition for a guardianship if the minor has in this state then that needs to be declared to the court it's pretty crazy again an adult adoptions for an adult adoptee being adopted by someone else to have to declare all of their assets to the court. Whether they have property or not as an adult it makes no difference whatsoever so that would amend the law to require the declaration of property to be only for minors. Sections four and six I have been under the amendment stricken because those issues have already been addressed by the House believes house bill four four fourteen forty eight section seven removes the six month residency requirement in private newborn adoptions. The history behind this is well it's not exactly newborns is it said minor who is under the age of six months the purpose for having a residency requirement is largely an older children for example in DHS adoptions where you want to make sure that the child who is coming into a home with certain trauma messes well with the family when you have the adoption of an infant's. Those issues are no longer present because. Usually the agreement for adoption occurs. At birth or immediately thereafter and the child is simply too young to to have those issues so there's a procure em order issued by the Supreme Court in nineteen eighty two with its. Says that whether you have an interlocutory or a final decree of adoption every order is a final appealable order in what this effectively does is for a child who is younger than six months. It would allow. The adoption to be finalized absolutely by without any waiting period. The last section in the main bill is section five and section five removes the. So the Arkansas law requires a health history and genetic and social history to be filed in every adoption case what section five does is removes the requirement that the filing with the court to be non identifying currently it is a Class C. misdemeanor to double the speed for any party related to the adoption to divulge the identity of another party. What actually happens is over two thirds of adoptions these days are fully open adoptions that's where the birth parents in the adoptive parents know each other's first and last names their cases where they may communicate. on a daily basis actually I mean I know specific cases where that happens but for one of them to divulge the identity to the other is a Class C. misdemeanor and that just is really an absurd result subsection five makes it discretionary if for example a birth mother wants a closed adoption she still may have that section five makes it discretionary as to whether the information filed would be identifying or not identifying the. I believe it's section ten in the amendment but the section in the amendment merely addresses the same issue yeah and the mutual consent voluntary adoption a registry statute which says that the documents that are filed in the initial adoption case. Maybe not identifying but removes the requirement that they must be so it brings the two allies into a concert with each other however if a minor under section ten of a minor when they become an adult request some sort of reunification under the mutual consent voluntary adoption registry then the people divulging the end for the entity's divulging the information at that time would still have to redacted any identifying information. So if any of them to find information passes it's going to be at the beginning when I worked at at the discretion of the protuberance in the adoptive parents. Sections four and six that address that okay March. Any any questions from committee. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak for against the bill. Singerman a center and you ready to close for you real yeah I'm closed I would just ask for a motion to adopt the amendment in good vote. Are we have a motion to adopt the amendment. I have a second all those in favor say aye. All right the member has been adopted. The chair will entertain a motion to up the bill. I have a motion to adopt the bill a second any discussion. All the favor say aye All opposed. The Bill pass is thank you committee men's of graduations. As amended. Barred anyone else in the room yes. We have center this. Croda Senator Kroll will go and get this one out of the way I guess. And With mil you running center House Bill fourteen ninety six before. Senator pro you're recognized by Senator Kroll this is a bill concerning buso athletic a contested contestant officials both on the Senate side and the House side we have officials triploid come to us this has It's in alignment the felonies I mean I'm death yeah the the the felonies with current code it does up the Mr meter so that there is a enhancements misdemeanor fine it's pretty simple straight to the fort for front of this we are at a shortage of officials and in today's society it seems like some people want to lay their hands on officials we don't think that should happen. Our gentleman you have heard an explanation of the bill. Are any questions. Service center have. Gross what you're discussions kind of going back to the highway bill what type education who's going to the education. on this that enhanced penalties have been passed I think it's only for the public to to understand that it's not gonna be tolerated there there are I'm a state representative Jeanne known here who is an official and sometimes that I could be in violation of their but that were not on the field so you can charge me that it's not verbal and nonverbal but it in all seriousness I've I will put public with the schools do that. What is it just got to be some public education on this road. Representative hawk and myself have been in contact with little leagues we've been contact with the Arkansas officials association and the collegian association and they have all we've talked to term of promoters and they are all going to post these at their sites I know right now Mr gene and I actually under on a crew together we do hear them say some of these before the games and they're gonna keep announcing them so I've talked to roughly twenty five different entities in the last week and a half on this and they are all aware that they've got to get this message out. I mean I think it's good for society as a whole to shame we have to announce that it beginning of the game but the people need to understand we're not going to as a society we can't keep tolerating the aggression is over this type stuff in kids see it in and it just continues on so thank you for your explanation yes Sir. The Senator Kroll. Of first of all five I am before the Senate former football official. Clause couldn't do both so of. This is are these penalties stricter than. Of what we have of if you're or the protocols serious physical energy injury to someone at a yes that's not an official yes Sir they are in the only spot is the misdemeanor you will have a twenty five hundred dollar fine that's the only thing that is enhanced the felonies are the exact same but the the misdemeanors are going to be twenty five hundred dollar fine. Thank. Of. The. And the laws that we have in place against. Hurting someone. Don't cover this again keep in mind I've been there no and we always. Went to the locker room and changed our clothes we left. Thank you know and good reason in some places yes Sir but that being said. As a private citizen. Not an official you can't hurt me. Not be against the law so why is this necessary. Unfortunately I just feel it's necessary because to Mr rice's point I wish you would have to put this into law but there are people that will I mean they can yell at all they want that's fine but there's people that feel like they can grab a fish or punch an official in its okay just last year at a school it was on well documented there was a guy that reach ground in and punched a guy in the face the bass ball field or basketball court and not straight out now no matter what that's going to be there was a crew that he was arrested he was arrested now if you go and grab a basket baseball official and grabbing buys gear and put him up against the fence and don't cause any harm. Under this message minutes misdemeanor part of it you will get a twenty five hundred dollar fine in normal that speed may or may not be anything at all. And that's for the court to leave but this will make that a twenty five hundred dollar fine if you grab an official put him up against the fence okay I thank. I would like to hear from the prosecutors on that Mister chair I will. To be sure of what we're doing here of the because again we we talk about the previous bills we talk about people being more aggressive in previous meetings we talked about having laws already in lack of enforcement. and so. I want to find out what the real differences here if there's somebody here. All right of I will say this. Our during that week of the championship games hot spring to sit with the officials that to I sat with the inset with I didn't sit with fans of county line of St with the officials during that time we have a lot of time to talk. And they all agreed that this is a much different world was thirty forty fifty years ago and that's that's reason they run off the court so quickly because some of them have been threatened and There's to be some crazy fans sometimes some of these games of if the Prosecutor wants to come to the end of the table indemnify yourself for the record. Mr chairman members of the committee I'm Laurie comparison with the prosecutors association the deputy prosecutor coordinator I'll do my best to try to answer any questions that you have on this bill Mr McMahon I know had worked for the sponsor originally and he had to step out for another meeting but I can attempt to answer him and you'll be back to also for the questions I've read this and on a. Degree with the intention but it seems like we're we're passing more more laws and were not any safer than we ever were so what does this change. My understanding is it creates a more specific offense then what we would already have as far as. It targeting Officials at an athletic contest I mean I do think there's probably some statutes that currently would cover a lot of that activity I want to know because again I can handle being yelled at screamed at. First. The I don't wanna be hit. Of but I'm feel like that if somebody hits me. Mr she shows me. I can call law enforcement immediately that's correct Dalby the offense of battery no matter no matter who the person is if someone hits you or shows you or makes contact with you in that way is it what could possibly be a battery offense. Okay so. I'm not sure it is asking of it would automatically make it a of a battery offense within the battery offenses we do have different categories that increase the penalties for certain people lack of a child under four I think or someone over sixty there's there's different categories you have to look at the degree of injury so this is talking about with the purpose of causing serious physical injury that's one of the categories sometimes you'll see enhancements where for a person over sixty you might not have to rise to the level of serious physical injury to be a felony offense and so I think what this is doing it's kind it's making it a felony in B. felony as opposed to a misdemeanor which it was previously so but it does look like with the purpose of causing physical injury that cause serious physical injury it it is creating an enhancement based on a specific class of person similar to what you would do with the person. Over sixty year under the age of four because always questions I mean for the whether it's prison guards were protecting or fireman was protecting you know I'm always wine. What more. And if there's a law already there. Well my understanding is yes there is already a law there we've we've said that before and I think that was discussed usually when you see those type of enhancements where there's a specific classification targeted it is more I think the thought behind it may be to create more of a deterrent effect so that people know Hey you know this particular athletic officials may be or a classification where you know the legislature has set a policy that they want to make sure that deterrent effect is out there and so that sometimes you'll see classifications that but as your question as to whether battery would occur if you're an athletic official and someone hit you yes it would already be a battery offense it just might be a misdemeanor battery as opposed to a felony battery depending on the nature and degree of the injuries you received so this changes it from a misdemeanor to a felony is that what I heard that's my understanding yes. Because of for. And do either of you have any idea how many people were arrested in Arkansas this past year for attacking officials. I do not. If you identify yourself for the record. Representive RJ hawk District anyone I apologize for my tardiness so to answer the question no we had twelve officials last year that were injured whether be battery I think the most famous was up in Mountain Home fan came out of the stands and threw a haymaker on official blinds name put in the hospital for a week hand the grand there were battery charges and I over heard you were asking why do we need this we've already got the battery statutes in place currently what we're also wanting to do with this on the misdemeanor side so all I had and I had a constituent come up to me and said that he was doing a baseball game last year fan came up to him grabbing buys chest protector threw up against the fence granted he didn't physically harm him like it is for an injury that's still sole it by the by the by this week by this you're gonna get this solved but you also have the twenty five hundred dollar fine added to that as well on the misdemeanor side because he was just going up to a dorm up against the fence with a chest protector and that's what was described to me we work with the the house Judiciary Committee to be able to write the language so it still goes in line with the current battery and assault laws but also enhance the misdemeanor laws as well. Okay what's the maximum that the a judge can do under current law. On the on which one on the misdemeanor or the felonies on the battery on the phone somebody wearing black and white I am from from what is so from what I was told was be if it were a to cause serious physical injury up to ten years in in prison if somebody under current law under current law yes and but what if they didn't call service centers they displace it's funded three five against the if they if they cause see you you've got a serious physical injury then you've got physical injury and then you've you've got to call it you know if you were if the intent was so we got pretty serious penalty down already if a judge. A prosecutor. Pursue it if they pursue it yes that's what we keep running into is not lack of law. But but lack of follow up because the next thing will be asked if we bring the right people in there is do we have a president that so again that as somebody who. Has done that job I appreciate it I'm just. Not sure how is continuing to add enhancements. Do we do we have any statistics on any enhancements by a prosecutor. Actually resulting in less crime. I don't have any of those statistics I was looking at the impact statement that was done by the sentencing commission up for this particular bill and it does say there was one conviction of four. The penalty five thirteen two oh nine abuse of that let athletic officials between January twenty twenty and December thirty first of twenty twenty two and then it said the proposed bills potentially already criminalized under battery in the second degree which is a D. felony or and that's the I think zero to six which representative Paul mentioned is the current penalty okay well I appreciate the appreciate intent thanks and Senator Clark I will also say that because of the shortage of officials I heard Senator Stubblefield say a moment ago the talk to other officials this was brought by officials and then this was also passed in Tennessee because they were saying the the effect of official saying look I I just wanna be a part of this anymore because I don't feel protected whenever I go out there and do this is a part time job no all the as you know all these guys are making sixty Bucks a game to come out to a ball game and you know the the these officials want to that they want they want to have some type of protection when they're out there and I I get what you're saying I really do I just think that we're seeing more and more of a shortage of officials in the average age right now but officials fifty five years old we will not get anybody younger and if this can be used as a recruitment tool to say Hey you know what we want to bring more people and what we've got things in place that are gonna make you feel safer to be out there and and to to do this for kids I think that that's why I feel it's a good bill. Senator Rapert you're recognized. Prosecutor Do you feel like this might be a tool. We're. Sometimes a local prosecutor is wary of bringing a criminal charge but they have an option for fine. The a monetary fine do you think that's something that might be helpful in this case prosecutors might go ahead and at least extracts money to make up for with people I believe that can be done as part of a plea negotiation that that may be that they would play to a fine at B. felony has going to have a higher fund to is that the D. felony I don't think it was a fine would be up to fifteen thousand dollars as a B. felony where the D. felony it's up to ten thousand dollars so it's a little bit more of a fine but yes it's a tool that you know the prosecutors could use in the appropriate in my thought is if it's agreed use and and put somebody in a hospital for a week that's probably gonna be pursued pretty heavy but again some of these disliked coming up. Winds and somebody or or. Totally get out of hand I would think just calm Joe twenty five hundred dollar fine or a substantial fine is going to make a point in and hopefully they can help calm this down in our society thank. Okay Senator Tucker does not look or look you. Did you all consider putting an affirmative defense and if the official makes like a really bad call. Hi. No I wanted to follow up on actually some questions that Senator Clark was asking and so I I mean he was asking about the difference in the elements of the crime and I understand that miss computers here talking about it there's more specificity here. I really want to dig in a little bit more on the difference in the penalties from existing law and Senator Clark has some questions about that the answer I heard I may have missed something is that it did change something from a misdemeanor to a felony. Did I hear that correctly. It looks like it changes it from a Class Ames misdemeanor to either a B. felony or a C. felony. Under certain sections okay some Senate it also it adds an additional fine on the a misdemeanor it looks like so on subsection a one of the bill. It's not already a felony is with the purpose of causing serious physical injury to a person whether they're nice like official or not you actually with a serious physical injury it would be a D. felony so it's going from a D. felony which is punishable by zero to six years and up to a ten thousand dollar fine to A. T. B. felonies okay okay which is five to twenty fifteen thousand so that one's going from due to be and and subsection to. What's that. Section two is the one I think going to a C. felony from a Class say and a C. felony is three to ten years. Which is up to ten thousand dollar fine. So to right now it's a Class C. misdemeanor Arkansas laws with the purpose of causing physical injury someone you cause serious physical and I think maybe it's a D. felony move into a C. okay and I think the misdemeanors they're serious physical not serious physical injury just physical injury okay. That I'm saying all that without the cobra Committee may have relying on what's on the sentencing commission at the bottom where it list out the penalties. Okay thank you. Are any other questions from committee. Anyone the audience would like to speak for against the bill. Good morning senator in five to for the record thank you I'm Clint Lancaster I am I had the privilege of working with the representative of hawk on this bill part of the reason why I like this bill is because I'm like the Arkansas Razorbacks I put all my expectations where they belong on my eight year old daughters upward soccer team. And so last year right here and and the Little Rock area ray Marshfield's we had a guy who just absolutely thought his seven year old should not have been called for hands and he was willing to beat up the referee and we had to go get one of our pastors who was. A later developing Christian that come solve this man's problems and ask him to leave and I say that because in this society people don't have respect for authorities in in Arkansas our law has a public policy of protecting people who are in positions of authority. For example if for example if I if I thought well Senator Tucker there I don't like that bill he's run and so when he gets up to speak committee I'm gonna hit him in the mouth well that's an automatic enhancement simply because he's a state senator in his official capacity we see that for school teachers paramedics correctional officers and for a number of people who are in these positions of authority. The main thing that this law does in my opinion as a guy who used to practice criminal defense law is that it's going to give jury's options it's going to give them options about whether they should run sentences concurrently they should run sentences consecutively they can't even sit there quit on this one four or five and on the other and I think that it's not going to have a materially is substantial impact on penalties but it will on our public policy and what we stand for as a state about what we value I think that discourse against government is a good thing but I don't think that violence is and I think the same thing about my kids eight year old upward soccer referees. any questions from committee. Don't monopolize sports all my life there's no justification for any fan coming out of the stands. Engraving fishery regardless of the the call is made I wanted to grab the Connecticut officially of the day is bad it even though we were distillation. But there is no justification for that. So any other any other discussion on the bill. Senator crow you closed you want to close for your bill yes I'd ask for do pass motion and a good vote appreciate you gentlemen have a good day our. We have a motion. Do pass with a second. A discussion. All those of favour say aye aye aye All opposed. Your bill passes Senate curl congradulations Senator Hester. You have a four Senate bill three oh nine Senate bill four five Senate bill four oh six House Bill fourteen seventy four. Part Hester state senator Senate bill three oh nine. This is a cleanup bill that representative five my rand last year or maybe. Last cycle maybe two cycles ago but Kind of felt found the specials of some unintended consequences by not leaving the board any leeway on that they have to terminate a license just because it's been over twelve months since it's been used and so we're we're we're really paring that down to just saying only a psychiatric residential treatment facility that has not been used in more than twelve months and I'll tell you I could be wrong about DHS so we work with them on this bill to get the language but really we just when when when they started licensing these facilities a grandfathered in some out of state companies and so out of state companies can hold the licenses museum they want but if you're from Arkansas you can't and so we really wanna say for an out of state company you haven't used in twelve months I mean it's not just out of state but anyone turns out if it's been more than twelve months and you know you got to start back over and get a new license if if if you want to. I to answer any questions Committee verdict another question the bill any questions. Anyone the audience would like to speak for against the bill. Seeing none. Senator you have I'm closed closed in a second Senator Rice aye motion or we have a motion to pass in the second any discussion follows the favor say aye All opposed graduations your bill passes. Senate bill four five. Is a judge Russell yeah thanks. Thank you member Senate bill four five I'm just going to hand it over to the judge and let him explain it would run this for camp for Senator Hammer today. Mr chairman thank you again my name is Troy Braz well have the honor of being a circuit judge in the twentieth judicial district which covers Faulkner Van Buren and Searcy counties and always appreciate the opportunity to come before this committee to address the issues that I'm having impacting juvenile justice we've heard a lot today from a test money on other bills that we're seeing an increase and and violent acts things that are different than maybe the way they used to be right now all across not only Arkansas but across the country we're seeing a huge epidemic in the number of handguns in possession of minors we're also seeing an increase in violent offenses are committed while in possession of those handguns currently in Arkansas law a minor possession of a handgun is a Class es misdemeanor under a couple of enhancements that can make that a felony specifically if the the juvenile has previously been adjudicated delinquent for that same violation or a previous felony education Cents in two thousand and eighteen there were twelve commitments to DYS across the state of Arkansas for the misdemeanor minor in possession of a handgun in two thousand and twenty two there were thirty five that's a a huge increase and those are just commitment so on those are not cases across the state is what that shows is that over the last few years we're seeing more and more cases of with the juvenile's imposition these handguns and so I've had opportunity to discuss this issue with my local prosecutor just sharing our concern about the violence in the community juvenile judges across the state share the same concern and the juvenile judges the support this as well as our judicial council this is not to be More punitive towards kids our hope is is that it make sure that kids across our state understand that when you have a handgun we take that seriously we still want to give kids the opportunities to be rehabilitated supported input back on the right path but I believe this committee would agree that and the illegal possession of a handgun has a huge impact in our communities across the state and we want to make sure that the wall is consistent with that of public policy and concerns. and so I'm just again just an honor to be here on behalf of the juvenile judges and the last thing I would say from a judge brown down and and pine bluff and we discuss this all the time because we see it gangs recruit younger and younger every year and a big part of that is because the law is different the younger that you are and that's not fair to those kids and those kids are at high risk and are being influenced by violent. In the law and and group activity and we want to make sure that the wall shows that we take this serious and hopefully the kids will will think twice about their continued possession of handguns the last thing I would say on this bill is there's a long list of exceptions that are currently in the wall that's not going to be contained in what you have before you I believe in in four of five in so I'll just briefly say those exceptions related to if you're out hunting you're with your parent in your home with your parents so there are there a ton of exceptions so this does not change any of those exceptions are currently in the law. Thank you chairman. Thank you for being here today. Help me get. Totally informed on this is our different sections in in here and I. You're saying in this. Any. Person eighteen or younger. Under under eighteen seventeen area. That's in possession. In their own personal vehicle. They've got a hand gun under the seat. And they're out in the Moonies of Arkansas. That they can be charged just like somebody that is in a. urban area. School that shows up with a gun in a backpack is that what this bill is doing right Senator I said that's a that's a good question I I don't think it does that where where you possess a handgun does matter there's a different wall related to possession of a handgun on school property so that's a different classification so current this doesn't change your scenario good the current meet only back up where you don't waste your time. Take it out of school yes Sir you saying the community yes are you mention gangs sure Tell me what the difference is that in this scenario I said well in my jurisdiction I have a pretty good variants of of communities when you go from Conway all the way up to Marshall and so certainly if the juvenile is driving on a street in Marshall and street in Conway and they're in possession of a handgun those are the same fax it doesn't really matter what road you're on or what city that you're in the certainly by prosecutors and law enforcement have discretion in what they decide to follow charging bring before the court and I think that your concern is focused on a kid maybe it's been out hunting with his dad or grandparent or but on the State Farm so those exceptions still are the same under this amendment it and my concern is and and it can only be one of these eighty percent twenty percent bills eighty percent this needs to be done to. Correct what's going on in in real life the twenty percent is those that. My grandson could be out for a cow that's out. I'm telling you do not go in in the woods I'm backed up to National Forest you don't going without a gun Hoosier pearl FOR all we've got okay most of a run away from me some of them will and they can they can do you damage or even kill you. There this the same way on long guns. so I do not want to trap we we had a we had a bill. If you remember session or two ago I was adamantly against until it got amended that would make you a felon for being known a piece of property that may be somebody that lives in another state didn't care at all but if you were carrying a fishing rod. You were going to be made a felon I'm trying to not to do the unintended consequences that's correct I and I agree with that that's something that we were wanted to pay attention to and that scenario that you just gave me is word for word an exception that's in the current statute person is hunting game maybe I know with a handgun unless it's in violation of game and fish commission there's other exceptions relate to being on your private property and so if you're on your farm so that those exceptions in the things that I hear your concerns about are currently protected under current law this isn't changing that in and just as a follow up you bring up a great point because we had several years ago there is a kid that had been out hunting. It was duck hunting with is family and they had taken the sun's vehicle and so when he showed up to school and he had forgotten that there was a shot gun in the backseat of his truck and I don't remember the details of how it came to be that they knew there was a shot gun in the truck but in that scenario the prosecutors and and law enforcement checked everything out and and learn very quickly that was purely an accident there is no kid trying to bring a gun to school and in that case they did not go forward on it because they use common sense and judgment inside I have before that you know I'm very fortunate to work with good prosecutors that the use or discretion while and I have no doubt that they'll continue to do that but I do believe we've got a lot of good prosecutors we here in other states and I don't know that that won't be coming to our state in time with the changes society is putting something in the law to go from a Class C. misdemeanor to a felony and that that's concerning to me and and again I have. Is there any was there any consideration in this bill to having somebody that had had any type of a record what was probationary our ties to a game or anything like that that would be doable well that Senator currently in the law there are the enhancements that I went over earlier that are in the current formation of the law and so as we as the prosecutors and and juvenile judges were going through it we started talking about what are the things that we're saying that are causing the biggest concerns in our communities and it was minor possession of hand guns hand guns that are loaded kids that have multiple handguns there is a lot of the times those handguns are reported stolen taken from cars vehicles those type of things and so as we started working three to the different scenarios that create these dangerous situations in all of our communities not just and and an urban area the list of exceptions grew to like twenty. And so or enhancements excuse me and so I that's how we ended up with making it a felony to ensure that the law is consistent with the community's concern and and how serious these things are and it is or isn't but bottom line is this would make any. Right hander eighteen with possession of a handgun potential for a Class D. felony yes Sir and then of course in juvenile court that's not something that's on your official record right juvenile courts or are sealed we discuss juvenile expungement before I believe in this this committee and so that's this would fall under something that if they were adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court that they would be eligible to have that record expunged. If if if appropriate thank you. Our judge you considers a constitutional carry states yes Sir. So if let me get this straight if if a father locked his hand gun. And he had a concealed carry permit the doctors hang up or locked it just to say put in the glove box. The kid drive the truck to school. Would he be charged. Well Senator only be charged driving down the street to Conway if you were stopped. Senator Stubblefield what it's difficult for me to answer that question because I'm not in the role of deciding who's charged and who's not I have seen is judge our local prosecutors use discretion very well and trying to figure out what happens in this specific case but he could be charged. Sure yes Sir absolutely for driving is his pick up that is that is put his weapon in. You. Any honest and I don't mean to that's a great question I don't mean to be coy about her flippant about it that. Mr chairman I mean anybody could be charged with anything. Really at any time and we we need the discretion of a law enforcement and prosecutors to assess each case on the facts that are specific to that case and so I can't answer for a law enforcement officer number one if it's locked I don't know how I mean how did law enforcement discover that the handgun was in the glove compartment so there a lot of facts there that make it difficult to say yes somebody would be charged or no they wouldn't. I hope it changes because to me now it just might be made it seems to take us down a very slippery slope in regard to our second amendment rights. I don't know there's too many what ifs and buts in their. Because I used to hunt with a pistol myself when I was a kid I don't think you've changed since in schools have changed what used to take him on school grounds without any trouble. But when you but when your father put his pistol in your in the glove box whether it's locked or not. And your driving that truck down the road in a police officer who may be not be you may not believe in constitutional carry we have police officers like that. You know they don't all go by the same any stop jam any arrest him for having that pistol. Any charged. He could be charged. Under current law yes Sir. Under current law. The way the law is now that's still true. Okay sent Tucker you have questions. Thank you Mr just follow up on that this this will change it from a misdemeanor to a felony unless there were aggravating circumstance it is currently illegal but what this bill would elevate the penalty for that's correct that's that's all that it does I have a couple questions about that one is a kind of a follow up on the questions Senator Clark was asking about our our last bill. That was on the agenda that we were just discussing it the question is really about the deterrent effect of increased penalty and how to I'm just going to kind of. Say an opinion and invite you to respond sure let's just say hypothetically only that our speeding on Arkansas highway purely hypothetical. Am I going to be more likely to reduce my speed if the legislature enhances the fine for speeding. Or if. I know there's gonna be a state trooper on the highway to me the answer to that question is is obvious. Whatever fine the legislature puts on there I probably won't even know about if I'm a citizen. And so to me certainty of arrest has a much stronger effect on criminal deterrence than whether you enhance the penalty or not and senator Clark was asking. This computer is if she had any data on that she didn't she was just called the table shouldn't have any data that that moment which I understand but if you have any comment on that or or response to that sure be happy to that's a great hypothetical scenario to address here's something that should not be dismissed or under valued. the streets talk. And I'll tell you when I when I first had the privilege of becoming a juvenile court judge. Our juvenile court was in disarray it was tough to sit through and watch and when when I was sworn in and started handling juvenile cases in a different way new spread quick. kids come into court asking me questions about things that I've done and decisions that I've made in court that they weren't involved in. And so the the type of dangerous activity that we're saying specifically as it relates to to gang activity they understand what the laws are that's why they're recruiting younger people to commit these violent offenses and so I don't think there has to be a you know of a campaign to inform the community at when these cases start coming through juvenile court they're gonna understand quickly that. As a society as a community as a state. We are concerned about this type of behavior because we're saying it leads to more violence fences and so I would based on what we see in court I would say that this news will travel fast with that the kids are coming to our court to make sure that we're handling them appropriately I hope I answered release address dry political shore Yeah somebody just a couple more. Yeah another is when we start talking about felony exchange in the permit in particular number changing something from a misdemeanor to a felony retirement send somebody to prison. now if it's a minor it might be juveniles and facility course of your next bill passes might be department corrections sure there as well but either way we're talking about a bit. And. Our prison system is at capacity right now and even if we create more beds in the session which may happen or not I think we're gonna be operate unless we change some other policies I'm not trying to get into that discussion but we're going to work but generally operating at capacity. So. the point there is that when we start talking about sending someone either to present period order prison for longer. We don't have unlimited resources it's it and so if we're spending a present but on this we're taking a present that away for something else sure and right now the department corrections invokes the emergency powers act on a regular basis to let people out who have been convicted of violent crime and and so my point there's because I think it's important for us as a committee to take that into consideration when voting on bills that elevate criminal penalties my point there is that when you making a case you're making a case that these kids deserve to go to prison when there what if they're convicted of a felony you know maybe there's other stuff. I mean that's what the bottom line is when you're convicted of a felony I mean you're you're welcome to respond to that but that's the penalty that we're talking about And so. The question is it the case that you need to make to persuade me is not only that we need a president but for this but also we need a president but for this more than we need to present but for something else this is a higher priority than another crime. Mehrestan please so does absolutely understand your point and there two things number one is I don't want to split hairs but it it matters you know convictions versus adjudications two different things you reference the extended juvenile jurisdiction the Bill what what this can do is give kids more opportunities to meet in that middle box with their kids that a prosecutor might charge as an adult if you J. J. is expanded it gives the juvenile kind of a third option to run the J. J. settlement Mr we get too far off in another bill and I'm certainly not sitting here advocating for more kids in prison spend my days and days out trying to keep kids out of jail and and keep kids out of prison but the harsh reality is is that the beds already a problem at D. Y. S. when you have twelve in two thousand and eighteen and thirty five and two thousand twenty two commitments and so we're seeing a huge increase with kids with guns and we're seeing people get hurt with those guns we want to be able to do more on the front end to make sure the second does next crimes are committed and I you know Senator we always discuss on a Senator Hammer is discussed you know bed space at the Y. S. in our previous efforts in juvenile justice reform we've closed down you have to facilities our numbers as a state or down to where they used to be prior to our reform efforts and so that will have to continue to examine what kids are being committed to DYS and I don't know where those discussions are going to go but juvenile judges are are paying attention to we're concerned about it we want more tools in the toolbox we want more programs and services to offer kids and so our goal is to reduce the number of. Kids that are going to DYS or conducted potentially you know going to prison in so I'm not sure that I have answered your point but that is a that is obviously a concern that we have in and we're not here advocating that we once and work is present I understand that that that's not your goal sure your goals public safety and and our understanding your role as a judge that you're trying to help me get in the right direction I understand that you're not here advocating for more kids go to prison. That's not your intent necessarily but the but they really the question is if this passes. Do you believe that the number of kids who are committed will go up to the Y. S. the short commit well that entertainment eighty see your members take take you deliberately well I would hope not I mean it when you're charged as a juvenile You know that your sentencing ranges is different it's the same for misdemeanors and felonies and if you talk about. Bed space in a numbers game me one of the questions that Senator the that we're looking at is you know what we have a high rate of misdemeanor commitments to DYS. And so part of our internal struggle in conversation is what we do about that there are times that it's appropriate to commit to DYS on a misdemeanor but we may be moving to a point where we have to reevaluate that we certainly don't want to be you know charge based system we're getting away from that and taking each case and looking at those risk assessments in making decisions based on on that and so if if we move in that direction then that could limit our ability to handle the more serious case like we have a minor possession and gun the could limit our ability on on where we can send that kid that is causing dangerous situations in our community in our parks and and those type of things. That I appreciate all that but this question leases is fairly simple I mean do you think there will be more commitments for commitments for a longer period of time is if this is the law. The only way that there will be an increasing commitments is it there is continues to be an increase in the commission of this offence. And. The the main purpose of this from judges is that the kids in our communities understand that we're taking this as serious as we are in the I don't believe or this point but let me put it this way I understand their commitments for misdemeanors on the current system right now. The representative of kids who are convicted. and educated of a felony is the commitment percentage higher there than it is for misdemeanors. It's the status quo in terms of the number of people who are not only committing this crime but then being arrested prosecuted for it okay. And so then the question is are they more likely to be committed to the Y. S. if they're charged with a felony and if they're charged with a misdemeanor I apologize I didn't I didn't get that part of the question I would say no for the courts that are using the standard validated risk assessment tools that we're not offense basin so yes what you did matters but more importantly in juvenile court it's why what's going on around you what Rick what risk factors do you have those that in most cases is more important Vande actual charge for the okay delinquency petition I would say that it's it would not to the behavior. Okay well then I guess the question is what's the point sure of the bill if you're going to the same you have the same number of commitments either way. The main dot to me the two things are number one that and it depends on DJJ bill is as well is that if you have kids that are in our courts that have hand guns that are creating dangerous situations it gives prosecutors and courts because just if the prosecutor files as an E. JJ that still entitled to a hearing in front of a judge to make a decision on whether not as an E. J. J. designation or the misdemeanor or she's me where I I just a straight a juvenile court case and so I think it gives prosecutors and judges more discretion as it monitors and some of the more violent behaviors and minors in possession of handguns with this increase and those possessions is leading to more serious crimes in our community and so it does have It does create the potential for more punitive sanctions but if the J. J. bill were to pass as well it also gives us an opportunity to work with the more at risk high risk violent kids. Before they end up going to prison and and one one thing Senator just Senator Hammer and handed me his impact assessment per S. B. four of five it says Makes it unlikely the proposed will result in a significant impact correctional resources the thing that was a question that you had earlier yeah. Okay I will I'll finish with this appreciated Mr chairman we talk about proper prosecutorial flexibility which I think. By March is a good thing but it seems like we're kind of removing some of that with with this legislation because right now it's a misdemeanor unless there's aggravating circumstances in which case it can become a felony. Which kind of gives prosecutor more room to work but we're now treating all cases same whether there's aggravating circumstance or not if this bill passes seems like a removes some flexibility. Well it it removes flexibility to amending that specific charge to a misdemeanor I mean there's it's hard to be give a specific answer when there's so many details in each case in each situation the flexibility is it that it creates is that you may have a kid that is high risk high needs now they're in possession of a handgun is becoming more violent and more serious and prosecutors left with the siding yeah they're limited in this scope of we have a kid this engaging in dangerous behavior now they have a handgun in our in our streets all we have is juvenile court. That's all we have and so with this it would give innocent and if the JJ bill amendment were to pass that creates more flexibility to you know protect our community as well as give kids an opportunity to get back on the right path. Thank you judge thank thank you Mr thank you Sir. sent center or McGee. Thank you have a question. The western. Sure constantly hearing about the epidemic of gun violence in our society today nationwide. Many of us feel like we don't need more laws to prevent gun violence we need to enforce the laws that we have. How do you think this will affect the judge's ability in this circumstance to. Keep kids from doing this twice keep kids from doing it two or three times coming back being encouraged by people older than them without expanding the number of laws that are sure thank you senator the great point we have got The be careful that I can say about say firm confidentiality standpoint In my history is judge there have been kids that have come through my court with this offense a minor in possession of a handgun and it was adjudicated as a misdemeanor and we did our best to work with those kids and those kids kept coming back and several of them have come back on very serious charges that involved guns and so as juvenile judges our biggest concern is what can we do to make sure that kids understand this is serious and right now they're told it's really not that big of a deal it's just a misdemeanor you can even be prosecuted as an adult for it you can even get EJJP for it so here you hold my gun. You take care of it and it doesn't matter. That's the concern is is there's a there's a set Penn Yan that because it's just a misdemeanor because you can't really get much only for it you do it you hold it it's okay that you're twelve there's nothing they can do to you if you're thirteen no big deal and so that's what we're trying to to push back against is to raise that awareness and to work with these kids and say if this keeps happening is going to get worse for you and you're gonna end up in prison we want to stop that I hope that answers your your questions Senator politician. Thank you thank you though In your experience is there a correlation NC among juveniles who commit crimes with firearms or in possession of them which they shouldn't be In relationship to their. Willingness or the number of times they will commit those same crimes as adults. Senator good question L. make sure I understand that are you asking me that when we have kids that come to our court that are charged with these offenses do we have success stories or is there more propensity Vatican are those individuals more or less likely to commit the same or more. worse crimes as they action thank you So much of what goes into that question that answer is going to be. The environment that that child is being raised in. that's why the use of a validated risk assessment tool is so vital to juvenile courts across the state that we can understand what a kid struggling with when I have K. kids are in front of me that have these assessment tools that show that they're around gangs that show that they the third attitude towards violent behavior is one that supports it those kids are more likely to to keep coming back yes Sir. Thank you Mr. The. The judge I think you are. From the time the first president of the bill I think that a I. I was trying to see things through your eyes and what your. Up against and. A. That. I think. What you're doing the bill is a good thing. The but the laws in black and white right I mean it the laws the law. If you could if the example that Senator Tucker used earlier. If I'm speeding. Whatever the reason may be. Under the law I'm still guilty of speeding. Correct. Yes so the and there are people in this line of work the legal profession. Of that tend to be legalistic I think it just kind of goes along with it not that everybody is but but when the whole idea is to know and to use the law. So back to what Senator Rice as Senator Stubblefield last under. We passed the law. And under the examples they used that juvenile would be guilty under the law we would be dependent on a prosecutor not to file charges with the defendant on the judge not to find him guilty but under strict interpretation the law they would be guilty. I'm sorry the question the question marketing while. One of the fact patterns that dealt with a handgun in a locked glove compartment and so possession is defined as you know your access to location near its on the backseat of my truck sure If those elements are met then yes you can be convicted of possessing a handgun in the backseat of your car. Potentially thank you a lot of very abilities. Questions from committee members. Judge you know what the Fremont rail. I'm an old timer discouraged. Reminds me of when I was in. We didn't have sex education when I was in school we just didn't have it. At. In fact. But I don't know of a child when they reached a certain age they didn't know where babies come from. But yet they started teaching that because we had a ninety usual large of teenage girls that we commit pregnant. Well guess what happened after they started teaching sex education these bills for five year olds. Which you know a child has just a store window of innocent in their lives to start with and now they're taking that in a sense out but teaching sex. Well this section now we have more teenage girls coming up pregnant than we've ever had in history of state of Arkansas. So sometimes these things work counter to what you you try to you senator going to I'm not I'm just not sure about this bill of metro this way you're signed up to speak against the bill you're recognized. Mister chairman okay if we just ran here miss rose five does that you for a. The Jeffersons Y. Arkansas Association criminal defense lawyers are members have been have hit upon a whole lot of the things I was going to say with regard to taking away discretion by making everything a felony and judge Brazzell for whom I have tremendous respect and work with when he was a prosecutor and also is a judge of. Referred to four of six and I really think you aren't need to the the J. J. amendments and I think you really ought to debate those two bills together essentially what you're going to end up with if these bills pass is fourteen year olds in E. J. J. with possible felony adult charges four of four what is a simple possessory offense not shooting anyone with the gun not threatening to shoot anyone with the gun but merely having and I think that's a I think that's going to be a dangerous policy That I don't think you really want to do but we'll leave it out that. And I'm happy to answer any questions Senator Clark if questions. Yes miss rose for you know have a great deal of respect for you enterprise will but the. Because I'm on the fence here and One hand I don't want a child who is innocent. To the call up in the system and I know so often. You know. With plea bargaining. Things don't go to court of and so somebody into being guilty he didn't do anything on the other hand. The fourteen year old that judge press will dealing with. That just had a gun. Probably doesn't just have that gun for an innocent reason. And. Do you see any need for if it's not this bill for a change in the law. They're they're all you're going to have all sorts of fact pattern you're going to have people who are are clearly heading for trouble and clearly heading for violence and you have the people who were riding around with and there's there's something in the car and any in the trunk of the problem the base of the problem with this bill four oh five is is that it takes away a lot of the flexibility now if the if the our young man or young woman the teenager has is doing something with a gun or threatening to do something with the guy and you already have charges aggravated assault for shooting someone that surely have. Eight point that I'm making is is that what this would do and what the apparent intention of the bill is to do is to quicksand all these simple possessory Frances into if the prosecutors want to into the EJJP system with all the. and I I think that's a policy decision that Corey's a policy decision but I think it is an over brought a policy decision that this these would end up being EJJP case but this bill is separate. Of and. We haven't had that other discussion at this bill is separate and wall you know I've been. Do we get hit with a motion all the time to express what the talk about a motion he's been talking but the fact that he's encountering use fourteen year old so I'm just going use fourteen year old that whatever the age may be that he's encountering pias other juvenile judges are who. That are guilty of anything. But there carrying a gun because the and he knows what he knows the reasons why he knows is not innocent and and for that reason I'm sympathetic to the bill. The end to his purpose of. And. Do we a rule as your representative criminal defense attorneys but do we want to make it possible for those fourteen year olds to still carry the gun and say I've just carrying a gun. The. Well in some cases it may be true there just may be where we are we've already covered that may be you know we're we're we're down to now probably not and that and what he's got to deal with in protecting other kids will forget the rest of us the kids are more often with other kids. and they're bullied. The and the expressly whether gangs involved and so. The the. Is there is there not in the. Four so that that you can't have a fourteen year old consistently going around carrying a gun. And saying well it's just innocent. You know there's there's no nefarious reason to this. Well but the the statute right now says it can be a misdemeanor under some circumstances felony under some circumstances for instance the second offense isn't would would be a felony I mean these these are ultimately policy decisions and the question is whether you whether you think it's a wise policy to elevate each one of these into a felony. I mean that's all alternately I mean that's that's the decision you have to make I I personally think that's warm up here because I think you're gonna end up with a bunch of unintended harsh consequences that you don't mean by that any possessory offense by a fourteen year old without any associated violence could in and up in the J. J. system which means possibly huh you know what ABC or a permanent felony record of under all under any circumstance depending on which which a juvenile court you ended you know if you ended up in. What the the you know the judge's testimony was I looked at you know at the the what they needed to do and they came up with it I'm sure wasn't exactly twenty but two twenty enhancements and for that reason they decided to go this direction and I can understand that might have made the same decision I think I would be more comfortable with the hence mints but of. But thank you both thank. Any other questions for Mr rooms where. It's not that Mr foes Senator Tucker. Thank you Matt madam chair and this is a question either for Mr Rosenzweig or judge your talking about you know if you're convicted something as a juvenile thank you be sealed. And I'm curious about the the distinction there if you're committed to DYS or pure tried as an adult sedate eighty C. you can still be sealed if you're convicted as a juvenile even if you're tried as an adult and set to send to the department of corrections. that automatic still how what's the difference there. You're going to run into a number of possibilities because their number different laws with regard to sealing of things but when some of when when the juvenile judge refuses to dismiss the case and and you end up with a don't sanction off of the JJ case that's going to be very difficult to get it sealed or expunged of A. I. hi I haven't dealt with that a lot in judge brown as well certainly may have some comments. That senator questions related to expungement and you're talking about specifically when a juvenile is charged as an adult and convicted and sent to the Department corrections yeah just the distinction I mean sure if they're tried as a juvenile. Is it automatically sealed expunged no Sir okay we just we just explain that sure absolutely and so I believe the last time I was here it was it was to address increasing the judge's discretion to XP able to expunge more off of a juvenile record in so while juvenile court is a sealed case not open to public review in most of the time it's not entered into somebody's a CIC or in CIC report so when you're running semis criminal history most of the time juvenile things are not going to come up they still can there's still some departments and agencies that have access to that part of a person's record in so for most people you you go through juvenile court your judicata delinquent you finish your probation and it's not expunged or right off your record there's no problem they don't have to answer you know questions that they've been convicted of a crime because they just been adjudicated delinquent what the the previous bill that we were here on is to give judges the ability to expunge more cases for kids to make sure that if somebody incorrectly enter something in the computer they're not twenty five about to get a great job in somebody says oh you had a felony criminal mischief when you were sixteen what happened there and so that gives us that ability so that's that's what we're here previously that's what all goes together it's not about just hammering kids it's about what are we seeing that so dangerous and what are the things that we can do to help kids and also hold them accountable so someone is charged as an adult. And they receive a conviction. At that point. So much charge that is as an adult and they were and they're convicted at that point there have to be an affirmative action by a court to either sealed or expunged records yes Sir and is that frequent for automatic or it just depends on the circumstances are I don't know that. I don't know the provision that would permit the ceiling from a normal petition to seal for somebody charged as an adult and committed to to ATC that's right sorry or the there are there are always of. Penzo whether it's a full target offense or not but there are three of the three things that can possibly happen to depending on what the charge is to a juvenile there is the station juvenile court the whole time Nevers goes in a calendar quarter all for certain offenses they can be true the person can be tried just as an adult and then there's the J. J. which is will start out in juvenile court but depending on what the judge finds whether there has been full rehabilitation or not can then be converted into the adult sense and so you have a problem I've seen this okay cases a couple times where well you stayed out of trouble but but I am I want to make sure I have something over you so I'm going to give you for years adult probation on top of your of of of the juvenile that's that that couldn't happen in the J. J. and so you can end up with an adult sentence even if just probation on something like this and then you have the problem of trying to a sealer expunge that it better don't probation and again that's why I suggest that you consider for five and four six together. Sure and in that scenario much easier two Senate set person to probation to a provision that allows you to expunge it and so in that specific scenario. I'm way more cases are expunged unsealed that are put on probation persons going to the ETC right right yeah okay the bottom line is if you're either tried as an adult here any JJ there's more likely that it's going to be part of your permanent record that absence of I'd say in general that's probably a fair assessment right if you're if you go through if you end up with an adult sanction whether you're a juvenile or an adult yes that's more that would definitely be more likely to be on your adult record over thank you yes Sir. Mr chairman. Yes I've been conferring with the judge here and based on a couple of the. Thought should've been expressed by the committee member today I think would like to do is pull we're gonna put of an amendment on it I'll bring it back again that will address what I think are some of the concerns of some of the members here because I do hear the voice of desire but I don't hear the appetite of passing it through as it is in the judge and I've conferred sitting here and we think we can bring back in Amendment that'll get to committee to a comfort level okay sounds good okay okay I'll get that worked up. So. Senator Hester. These are all Senator Hammer. Senator hammer you have four oh six. Okay. Senate bill four six. K. twenty four six. Others. I can dress okay Mr chairman while the judges here what we are but just for him let him up the plane the champ it's a bill for them yes Thank you Mr chairman again for the opportunity to to be present this is another bill that is supported by juvenile judges and judicial council in conversations with our local prosecutors and how to handle some of the more serious and and violent cases are coming through our core but also to balance the opportunity for rehabilitation and support and so what this does it it gives or currently in Arkansas law it once she turned sixteen I have kids account for me all the time they're excited about being sixteen and a seller congratulations you can now be charged as an adult with any felony and they get real serious pretty quick that they understand that being sixteen creates that what this does is and I think I missed Rosenzweig referenced it you can have three buckets so if you have a sixteen year old you can be charged as a juvenile and juvenile court and you can be charged as an adult in adult court and criminal the criminal division right now there's a very limited number of the senses that a sixteen year old could be eligible for for what's called extended juvenile jurisdiction which is that middle pocket kind of a hybrid we were discussing earlier between juvenile court and adult court in so with part of what this bill would do is give prosecutors and judges wider discretion on giving kids a chance city JJ versus having to pick juvenile or adult and so right now all you may have a seventeen year old that's charged with a serious sexual assault in the second degree and maybe that kid has been through juvenile court before maybe they haven't insert prosecutor is having to make a pretty tough decision is this kid almost is almost eighteen need to be in the adult system or do they need to be in the juvenile court system. Right now they don't have the third option that each AJ bucket and so with the intent of this is to give um prosecutors and and judges more discretion in and helping kids I'm not end up in the adult system and certainly if you're on E. J. J. M. S. Rosenzweig points that earlier and said well court can just say I don't think you've been real militated I I would disagree that it's about flipping of a decision for a court to make there's a lot of testimony press B. findings that are made certainly judges made listen to testimony and evidence different than others and so what this does it gives us that flexibility to maybe give kids a chance that otherwise would automatically go into the adult system. And then the other factor that could get a DJJ sentence in adult sanction handed down as if you have a commission of future additional crimes. Are you Senator Hammer you have something to add to that now I would I would just sit here thank is judge you know we're we're going to actually look at building a bigger prison if we could do something to intervene by creating this option for the judges I think that would be of a good thing that we could sell which is a potentially before they the ended up having to be you know put into the adult world so that bill I had to March any any questions from committee. Senator Tucker. I think you've answered this in your explanation already but it's a complicated issue I just wanna make sure I'm sure undersea always have great questions and. I don't know this will make an exception to the. I'll write it down if it is. So there's kind of two scenarios in my in my head one is that the kids that this bill applies to right now they can only be two. Tried as juveniles and this would enable them. To be tried as juveniles or E. J. J. that's that's not correct no Sir okay and so what you're saying is that right now the kids that this bill applies to they can already be tried as adults yes Sir and so and not but not be able to get the services there You J. J. so this is get there are currently able to be tried as adults and this is giving and then the other option of BJJ yes Sir okay thank you. Or any other committee members of questions. Saying under Mr Rosenzweig give some. Our road record speak against the bill. The. It. I'm sorry. Language at the very end Page three when he or she engages in conduct that if committed by an adult would be a felony there are all sorts of of felonies that I don't think you want to go in the J. J. felony hot checks for instance or you know some of your other forgery forgery type offenses the current statute has listed some berries you know more specific serious charges that are currently E. J. J. for sixteen and seventeen year olds uh the problem here it when you say any felony I think I think that sweets way too broadly and particularly considering you are saying about every day somebody comes in with the bill to change something that's in a misdemeanor and ready felony over and over again some of these are going to pass is in the question I think you just need to ask yourself is do you want to exercise some sort of selection about what. What possible A you want to have any J. J. and not to say anything that anyone to put the felony. You felony label on a should go DJ Jett. How many hot check violations if you saying go to each injured. I'm sorry. Thank you as hot check violations of you seniority Jerry Jerry. Our our. Is that what you mentioned not check what we go. well right now they don't. This this would allow them to this would allow them to go the judge yes that would prevent a J. J. the law doesn't oh I'm sorry I may have been scored an own goal is an apologize we always had a good conversation so we like to go back and forth but right now all this language is currently in the law and that's one of the first things we talked about is. The law is any sixteen year old or seven seventeen year old can be charged with a felony as an adult right and so what we're saying is the law is right now it's sixteen you can go to juvenile court or you can go to adult court. But there's very limited for this metal hybrid each JJ in so it's there are I will. Likely kids that are being charged in the criminal division of the circuit court. Because the prosecutor says you know what we kinda already passed the juvenile court stuff you maybe already had a case in juvenile court you weren't rehabilitated yeah we could charges a juvenile but we're charging as an adult and so what this does is gives prosecutors the opportunity for that and judges and just because a case is designated the JJ prosecutor may file Casey J. J. that doesn't mean it's Stacey JJ defense attorney a good one like Mr Rosenzweig would file a petition to remove that designation and move it to juvenile court and we're gonna have a hearing and I have to go through certain factors in so just because a case is filed as you E. J. J. doesn't mean that it can't go just straight juvenile either and so it in instead of saying juvenile court adult court we're now saying there's a middle ground that we can make these kids eligible for that doesn't put em automatically mental system for you to get a quick break in on each other you know what. We have any other questions from committee. Our our Mr road ways anybody have any questions from school. March St John's Hammer. You're recognized close for your bill thank you Mr I think that what the judges that deal with this every day are asking for is a very reasonable request that they're asking for other options that are not there that could help the kids that would and I still refer to miss kids to the kids that would give them that option to give them what I heard instead also ago additional services that they are not getting now which hopefully will help prevent them from going to the adult level and so I see it is a good option and I heard the concerns expressed but I still deferred the judges have brought forth a good bill and I appreciate a good vote. Part of center was closed for the bill. Sure entertain motions. I have a motion do pass. I have a second. You discussion. All those in favor say aye. All opposed. The Bill pass. Thank you Mr we have a roll call. Senator Hester. Senator Hester. Senator Rice. Senator Rice aye. Senator Tucker. Senator Tucker is I. Senator Gilmore. Senator Gilmore. Senator McKee. Surtr McKee. Senator Clark. Senator Clark Is I. Senator flowers. Senator flowers is no. Your vote yes. For the for eyes one know your bill fails the chairman would be allowed to come back in yes present the bill again correct we will we will meet by the way we want we have a. News conference at two o'clock on criminal justice bill the governor we presenting we will meet thirty minutes upon the German of the Senate so we'll make it to thirty okay thirty minutes after the news conference Mr chairman let me ask if on Senate bill four five forget amendment worked up between now and then it can get sent back over to the committee with that be an option for the chair. Sure we're running out of time. Thank you we have we have a promises twenty second bill we have a twenty second bill the Senator Tucker hello Senator Rice as to go home. In a minute. But I was told this only takes twenty second center you have an amendment yes Sir fourteen twenty seven yes Sir I said sixty. Section forty to sixty seconds you can. Okay you're recognized thank you Mr chair members amendment first. Yes Sir I'll explain when I explain the bill I just moved to pass on the amendment appreciate a good vote. All right we have a motion passed of the past on the amendment I have a second all in favor say aye. All opposed. Far too management. It's passed or if you're recognized thank when the bill thank you Mr chair the code or the code revise your used to be a separate agency from bureau of legislative research about fifteen years or so ago it was transitioned into B. L. R. and because of some issues that existed with that transition and and kind of some personalities at that time the code revisor has service and special protections and code that other BLR employees don't have they can't they can only be the code revision commission right now has to participate in interviews for the potential new hire of the co revisor and they can only be terminated with the consent of the code revision commission the that long time co divisor vents Henderson is now retiring and and with his retirement we're just kind of completing that transition the code revisor will be treated just like Kevin Anderson Matthew Miller any other important employee of DLR they're sort of just under the jurisdiction of the director of the L. R. the only difference in this is what the The Amendment says is if the covered by there's gonna be terminated then they have to at least have backed the bill or director has to have that conversation with the code revision commission this is not a technical corrections bill but all legislators on the code revision commission have been conferred about this and and we're on the same page about it and it's just completing that transition arts your next launch of the bill any questions. SunTrust. Is. The alarm director for this. Even the bill Arden and gonna take positions on legislation I can just say I've had numerous conversations is is the be all are Director conscious of what the bill the yes Sir absolutely. Any other questions from committee. Anyone there are these to speak for against the bill. Senator Tucker you're recognized close to bill I'm close appreciate a good vote moved to pass. As amended are there is amended. Senator cause close for the bill. all those in favor of house bill fourteens twenty seven is amended say aye. All opposed. The Bill pass to occur. Fourteen twenty seven passes is amended we will we're gonna German we will meet again at two thirty. Two thirty.