Judiciary Committee- House

They've got me to call them. Both chair sees a quorum members we have a lot on our agenda this morning. First off we're going to take up house bill twelve oh eight which is a concurrence house bill twelve oh eight you have it it's the gold sheet and that this time I would S. vice chair berry to take over. Thank you madam chair. If you'll take a seat to the table dental for yourself and then you could proceed with your bill. Thank you Mr chair members of the committee this is simply some amendments the Senate made to a bill we've seen this before they it gets down and they decided to change it up a little bit with that I'd be happy to answer any questions a question to the committee on the amendment. Question. Mister rich thank you Mr and represent all your okay with the. The monkey around that I am I I worked with him on it okay thank. All right any more comments on. On the Amendment not. What's who I'm close I'm close for an amendment make a motion to concur. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Oppose motion care thank you Mr chair thank you members of the committee. Members we have another concurrence in one represent guess we gets in here will pick that up because he has actually about the first three or four Bills. Hi Representive weighing we'll be back in just a moment on his bill represent Duffield I don't see an. So let's turn to. Senate bill two sixty three representive Underwood you're recognized go the end table. R. Mendes I roll to the end of the table. If you will identify yourself then you're recognized for C. the chairman's Arkansas get down here at Camden under would District sixteen if it please the gentleman can I have a guest drawing table yes thank you. Receive. The Committee currently what this bill does is currently under Arkansas law repairman have an absolute lien on the products they they they provide labor or services on if the person doesn't pay and there under title eighteen that that lien is automatically perfected the one that once that happens if that happens session of the property but the issue is that. The law currently states that you have to provide notice which is fine but there's contradictory language also requires that that notice that that bond be set by circuit court and currently what's happening is in order for you to get that balance that you have to file a cause of action to do that to get that mindset so and and Mr Williams here to probably get a little bit better explanation to me but essentially what this bill is set setting to do is if somebody doesn't pay for those services. The wind holder can still fall notice which doesn't require the out file notice they would pay a bond but they don't have to follow that with bombing not be set by the circuit court is it would have to file a cause of action to do that and then if it and then they can sell the property and you know satisfy their lan and it's going to be have anything maybe you could explain a little better Mr Williams you killed in a fire yourself and then you may proceed all right my name is Wade Williams I'm an attorney at the northwest Arkansas This is somewhat of an obscure statute it doesn't get a lot and I think that a big portion of the reason it doesn't get used is because it on a practical level is impossible to get it done in the nontraditional fashion that it was designed. The the changes proposed is literally to just take the requirement of a bond from being set by the circuit judge to being set by the lien holder fair market value and filed with the circuit Clerk notices then given to that the the consumer the the person who brought in the item for repair and didn't pay for it and pick it up and possession is already a requirement that the the lien holder does have to have possession of the item in order to be able to to follow this procedure. Once the bond is set notice is given again and and the consumer has the opportunity to to get pay for or or be aware of the sale when the sale occurs if there surplus it goes to the consumer and if the consumer feels that the process itself was abused the the way we've written this in here create some punitive elements for the lien holder in that the lien holder can be held responsible for twice the actual value and that value would be established by a court. So in addition to being responsible for attorney fees and costs as well so it does provide some additional consumer protections to what's existing now but it also allows the statute to to go back to that non judicial procedure that was originally set up in in nineteen ninety. Members are there any questions. Seeing the questions we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representive Underwood you're recognized close for your bill I'm close the bill and I make a motion to do pass members we have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion please say aye any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill thank you Committee thank you. Represents Qatar you wreck ready. members if you'll turn to House Bill fifteen seventy six House Bill fifteen seventy six and there's an amendment that will be passed out. What's the name and gets passed out represent Scott then you'll be recognized. In front of you representative Scott if you'd like to present your amendment. Thank you madam chair and Jamie Scott districts seventy two and the chair I mean the amendment is an amendment that includes conversations I've had with the governor's office this morning and the Department of DHS so it just makes an exclusion for DYS for safety reasons. Members are there any questions on the amendment. Represent represent Scott you're recognized to close for you amendment I close my my amendment and ask for do pass an amendment we have a motion to pass the amendment adopt the amendment the discussion. Seeing no discussion all in favor of doctor in the amendment please say aye any opposed please say no the ayes have it representative Scott you're recognized to present your bill as amended thank you madam chair colleagues I'm proud to present the crown act a bill that would codify protections for individuals with natural here and protective and culture here south this bill is about freedom freedom for people to wear their hair in their natural hair spouse or any state in which are here gross this is a very simple bill it prevents discrimination based on protective records of cultural here south which includes afros braids dreadlocks or Twiss it passed this definition in Arkansas Civil Rights Act of nineteen ninety three it makes it so the school districts and colleges and universities can discriminate against students based on their natural hair south I carry this bill as someone who knows all too well the struggles that young boys and girls in our communities will face throughout their lives because of the texture of their hair south city six show that if no later than the age of ten that most young black girls first experience here discrimination it starts early in life in the continues as they grow and I want to work to create in Arkansas where our natural hair is accepted this bill is a real problem that young people in our state are facing in twenty nineteen the coach at the university of Arkansas Fort Smith basketball team told one of his players who have at ten Lynn Jett lights that he did not like his hair and he would not recruit players who had here like his this player was named Tyler Williams any had dreadlocks and he was a student and he was a guard and he was the leading scorer for you A. F. S. in the twenty eighteen to twenty nineteen season now I do want to say that I felt like after doing research at the university of Arkansas Fort Smith did a very good job in handling that situation but I would like to put. That from happening to other students in this state. This is just one of the examples of the real and open discrimination that people who wear their natural hair spouse feel in every day we have a power to put two in the obstacles by passing the protections outlined in this bill without these protections in place we are allowing harmful barriers to education opportunities for hundreds of thousands of people in Arkansas some who look just like me so I ask today that you support people showing up as they are in. This is of learning and great them the basically pretty of knowing that their natural hair would not impact their ability to reach their fullest potential in life. similar legislation has been passed in nineteen states including our neighboring states Louisiana and Tennessee there is no known opposition to this bill and I have worked with the governor's office and DHS like I said to at the exclusion that they need it for DYS. I'm open for questions if you have any at this time members are there any questions or representative Scott. Seeing no questions. We have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill representative Scott you're recognized close for your bill thank you for your time and I ask for do pass members will lead and we have a motion to do pass as amended on the table is there any discussion of the motion all in favor please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill thank you so much committee. Members will move to House Bill fifteen fifty representative under house bill fifteen fifty. Thank you Mr chair colleagues representative Steve Unger District nineteen House Bill fifteen fifty. Is a law that changes the payment schedule of restitution if there's a court finding and there is a victim who is owed restitution the victim will be paid first in the courts last. This is an idea that actually came via the city prosecutor of Springdale and I showed it to the city prosecutor in fade bill and he thought it was a great idea so that was a real coup by ya moment what a crime victims are poor people and this is a bill that would benefit the poor I'm open for questions. I represent a company you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair when I was studying to bills last night I kind of wondered So they will not put them in jail for not paying their criminal fines before they pay restitution. Could you restate that please. If they pay restitution first and cannot afford to pay the criminal fines will they be held in contempt or will they be put in jail for not paying the criminal fines. I don't know the answer to that. I think we need that answer before we can pass the bill I thank do you have the answer thank you represent Collins you're recognized for a question. Well I I I kind of want to try to maybe get at it so I think that if you fail to make your payment on your installment fee that's that's required you have a failure to pay and that's a charging you can you know there are consequences for that but if we are prioritizing restitution then someone might have money for the restitution payment but not for the you know regular installment fee and I think maybe what representative Crawford's asking is is there going to be some kind of an exemption to punishment for failure to pay if someone can't make that installment thank you that. I believe that's probably going to be in the ballpark of the prosecuting attorney that they will make the decision of how they're going to proceed you just can't get blood out of a turnip. The call you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair to your knowledge representive Underwood is this conflict with any other laws for the. A court cost that are to be paid first such as in a domestic violence fine fines or anything like that. Ma'am I'm not aware of that the fact that to a city attorneys are one of mon proposed that the other one thought it was a good idea B. O. R. didn't come up with any issues so I have to say not to my knowledge. Represent Crawford you're recognized for a question yes madam chair would it be possible to hear from prosecutors what they think of this. And may I invite my friend attorney Duffield. Not to feel. Oops all right. Yeah. I appreciate the election to the house thank you many of them and you're recognized thank you Mr chairman my name is Matt during prosecutor if the fourth judicial district and president of the Arkansas prosecutors association Daniel shoe I'm prosecuting attorney in the twelfth judicial district and on the legislative chairman for the Arkansas prosecuting attorneys association and I guess first off this is not an A. P. A. a bill. But what I would say to try to answer the question is typically at least in our cases whenever we're putting someone on probation and ordered to pay court costs fines victim restitution we put them in order and we have victim restitution at fifteen hundred dollars payable at a hundred dollars per month beginning this state and then hundred fifty dollar court costs and do it on this state so they're not all do it once and and typically meet in almost every case we set up a payment plan so it's not all do it once and in those situations where it's not fully set out you can't provoke someone or penalize someone for non payment and once it's willful non payment so in a situation like like you're concerned with someone who can only afford to pay the victim restitution and it's required to be paid up front they can't pay the victim restitution and court costs and fines at the same time you can go back and penalize that person because that nonpayment isn't willful it's just due to lack of resources so. Members any other questions. Seeing the for the questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill thank you gentlemen for coming to the end of the table representative under you're recognized to close for your bill. It's good to have friends in court thank you madam chair colleagues ask for a good I'm close for the bill passed for good vote thank you. Members represented under his clothes first bill do we have a motion. To do pass thank you. We now have a motion of do pass on the table is there any discussion of the motion. All in favor of the motion say aye All opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you passed your bill. Members let's back up to House Bill fifteen twenty one I see representative wing has come into the room House Bill fifteen twenty one. Members there is an amendment so let's get that amendment passed out what sets passed out representative when you'll be recognized. Right represent when we have the amendment now passed out you're recognized to present your amendment hope this amendment does not hurt the ability to get this bill passed but I have added a couple of co sponsors to the bill. Membership for the explanation of the amendment with the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to adopt the amendment any discussion seeing no discussion all in favor adopting the amendment please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it you're now recognized to present your bill as amended thank you madam chair thank you committee a House bill fifteen twenty one creates the criminal offense of disarming a law enforcement officer now the states that if a person takes the officer's firearm nightstick taser or any other device that could be used to inflict injury on that officer it's a Class C. felony and one of the stipulations of course is that the law enforcement officer must be in uniform for his duties what I found is that. That wall many states have this law all of our neighboring states have this law of disarming except for us and so I thought it would be time for Arkansas to join that and be able to show support for our law enforcement but also most importantly when a law enforcement officer loses one of these items that changes the entire situation at that point I have brought loose lieutenant jim Scott from North Little Rock police department with me and with the your permission madam chair I'd like for him to be able to say a few words yes please identify yourself for the record. Madam chair committee it is such an honor to be here this morning my name is jim Scott I'm ready lieutenant colonel FOR please format semi retired. I'm not always I'm to city all of the dignitary protection This bill is kind of a dream I think for about the last six seven years when we realized this law even existed in other states a police officer's worst nightmare in the course for duties as when you're making the rest of a subject of people resist arrest that happens all the time because these were a few occasions were I remember as a young officer the first of all we've got and and a and a subject I was trying to place the rest had both hands on my on my farm and what we I was able to getting out of that situation getting custody but unfortunately only charge that we can present to the subjects for his actions was resisting arrest which is a misdemeanor The world becoming more data for law enforcement you know we've gone through a pretty tough time and and you know the a very honorable men and women who served as police officers throughout the state I think this is a very needed law I think it will help protect officers and I appreciate your consideration this matter this morning. Representa you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair a couple questions about some of the language in here the first thing I've got a question about is on this first page line thirty two any other protective gear so certainly I understand fireman all about but with something like issue be considered protective gear and is that to find anywhere in the bill. We actually we worded it specifically and it's kind of funny that you came up with that exact phrase because that was my exact question as well and the and I was assured that the wording would be any for any item that could be used it protecting an officer and so that that's how that R. BLR and our legal people decided that that would be best to define. Follow up you're recognized one more and on something different this presumption I'm looking at line thirty five and the actor is presumed to have had a conscious object to engage in contact I'm a little bit confused trying to square that language with the language in line twenty four so The offense of disarming an officer requires purposely using physical force to take from a law enforcement officer. But then when we jump down the actor is presumed innocent of what it means is the actor is presumed to active purposely. If what I guess can you fill in the and that sounds really good like I'm kind of finding my brain in the loop here without an end to that yeah I either the presumption is if you have if you have grabbed the weapon if you have grabbed the the firearm let's say that's the most common but if you grab that you're that is there there is intent in doing that that's not just random flailing you have yeah like like what lieutenant Scott just said to the both hands are on the firearm we know what's happening there. You're recognized thank you and I appreciate that that's obviously very clear example but if somebody is failing if somebody is resisting arrest failing they knocking on and any gun drops theoretically one could argue that that hitting of of if I had representative Richardson's arm this is physical force as a result he's lost his weapon can you just point to me what language in the bill would preclude that from being considered from falling under this president. And if I may there's a huge difference between and you're right these sometimes resisting incident to get kind of it's a flight and you to fight it the goal that resistance of course for the officers to gives me cause to bring in for the state for the charges they face up in a case like that if if there was a resistance subject and in his actions are just flailing and a nightstick as part of an officer's hand the weapon gets of any type is talked about is not an attempt to disarm and that's that's your situation that's the response will be offered to collect the facts of the arrest itself of course the prosecutor would have the final say in in all these charges and when it goes to court no we're talking about specific cases where we were and offender would actually take this to another level not a normal resisting subject that you've got mental problems or rock or all the issues we see every day as police officers but these are these and specific cases were somebody goes after an officer's weapon with the intent to cause harm and it's very differently different. Represent college you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair I I just want to think about the the typical course of conduct that you guys describe so I mean oftentimes somebody will be being put under arrest when this kind of discernment happens in presumed weighed when they disarm the officer right off the bat bill about to commit another you know either assault or something else so you've got one crime that's the debate you know basically I'm then you've got one crime to be committed after the sermon and then on top of that we're talking about putting a Class C. felony on there which is three to not more than ten years so I guess I'm wondering you know we really gaining a lot by having such as an additional yes pretty significant additional felony but put on there when you probably are already going to have you know a significant sense that the you know the accused would be facing what do you think this game they're adding that. Yeah yes. Sort thank you for the question very good question this has to do with educational cases I mean judges to give them a way to difference rate somebody this is having a basically a crisis moment and be arrested and tried for your state the charges that they're facing person somebody who who is showing great intent to either hold an officer or on the public and these are the ways that the judges can actually start looking at the behavior of individuals on the street and and how they engage with police officers and I've become more fair way as far as is right now they're it if if if it happens your to pay your report but there is no charge to go with it you know somebody commit tempted try to disarm an officer there's no way to track those kind of cases and this get this enables the the court system to track those kind of cases and to provide a much stiffer penalty and maybe even as far warning that they were trying to protect officers follow up please you're recognized thank you are I understand that I guess could it just be introduced as evidence when you're you're considering the courses you know contacting your considering sentences a court you've got it you know say that it was arrest on a you know Class C. felony you know when you're looking at three to ten years could they consider that when they're making their sense and maybe have a more severe sense given what you know what happened there I think again to your regional yes certain goes back to my original answer and and I think that if if if somebody's able to disarm an officer there are gonna be additional charges you're you're absolutely correct but I think to the fact was on the weapon and despite the suspect that he he committed some heinous act of you know successfully getting a weapon away from an officer or a corrections officer or or anybody who wears a uniform and causes harm that discreet enhanced towards versus somebody because of his acts I mean he is committed probably the one of the most scariest thing a police officer could encounter it is. Career and that is getting his or I mean you know every time we go on the call there's always a gun there because we carry firearms and we carry other weapons systems and beyond back to that moment that that offender is not like another somebody who's either trying to solve the offer from the outside and we we we train for those kind of things this is that one unique individual what kind of taken it's taken on the entire basically the state of Arkansas because he's trying to harm one of our police officers were good men and women. And I would add that but also in the. The situation that lieutenant Scott described at the beginning was all he was able to do is charged with a misdemeanor at that point what we're trying to do is bring something that rises to the level of significance when this becomes a very very different situation for the police officer of the law enforcement officer the person McCauley recognized for a question thank you madam chair thank you for being here today I'm just wondering if from both me was there any thought into dividing up the penalty a little bit because it seems to me like it's a possibly a greater danger to take away a firearm then maybe the other ones was there any thought into separating that out as far as penalty goes. I'll let let me I'll go first of the first thought is is that any of those others can lead to the firearm and so once you disarm with the taser or night stick you can disable the officer then the firearm that becomes that much more able to be used by. You're recognized were filed. I also wanted to ask that you know it's it's. I know you guys get all kinds of conflicts and it's a dangerous job but I totally understand that but I also know if if it's a human reaction if you're getting hit with a stick or something to to try to block or to try to take it or stop stop the action in some way is this the defense time just was just trying to protect myself not trying to hurt officer. And that is a very good question again it's it's it's a responsibility the police officer to be professional everything we do and no matter how crazy the conflict no matter how crazy the arrest situation around and it is literally the also being a lawful recorded is his responsibility to articulate the actions that he did in the amount of force that was used or any arrest and which forms will not tolerate force outside the force that we allow and in situations of arrest there is a again it's a massive difference between somebody grabbing you know trying to you know what maybe blocking eight we don't want to talk to use it's not like you maybe see in movies it's not a wall flowing of a night state that's not how we utilize that kind of technology but it's because they blocked the strike or what you know I wouldn't call it strike you don't really see that as much anymore those oldies appeal twenty fours are pretty much gone but that's not this morning that's not what we're that's not the intent of this bill or this law. This is this been telling this bill is to is to create a differentiation between somebody who's just resisting arrest whether they are fighting with the officer bill remedies for that forces somebody to take it to the next level actually trying to attack the officer obtained a weapon with a be a taser pepper sprayed with and of course you know this section any time they do something like that is they're trying to kill a police officer and that's that's the importance of this bill. Members any other questions. Seeing no further questions we do have someone who signed up to speak against the bill Mr Rosenstein if you'll come to the end the table you're recognized. Jefferson for Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers whatever the merits of the bill in its current form it's clearly unconstitutional the US Supreme Court in Sandstrom versus Montana in nineteen seventy nine and France's first Franklin in nineteen eighty five specifically struck down presumptions in criminal cases either mandatory or burden shifting and however you interpret this it is it is destined under under established US Supreme Court case law to be held unconstitutional as long as there is a presumption in there now I'll also point out that the presumption what they're presuming is the definition of purpose which is and so what you are what you would be creating would be and I'm constitute not only unconstitutional but a strict liability offence when I don't think you're would be wanting to do that but and let as long as there's a presumption in their this bill would be if passed would be destined to be held unconstitutional I'm happy to answer any questions. Members are there any questions. Representative Peter sure recognized for a question can you tell me how it would be unconstitutional because the U. S. Supreme Court held that the state has the burden of proof in a case and you cannot have a presumption that that relieves the State of having the burden of proof the burden of proof being a purposeful up for to shift the burden of proof in other words to say that the defendant has to prove that he didn't commit an element of the offense that's those the case L. for the jury's soap and would be confused about that and so as a practical matter what it does it strikes down president of those cases of Sandstrom and Francis strike down presumptions in criminal cases you got presumption a civil case because that's a different that's a different matter but a criminal case you can't have. This represents what are you referring to line thirty five thirty six on page one AM okay member since that's what he's talking about the perception. represent because you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair and you kind of got that what I was just trying to drill down on what you're what you're referring to so you're talking about the mental state here has to be proven by the state you can't just presume. Or you're talking about that the actor is presumed to have had a conscious object to engage in contact or because result if all these things they can do that they have to make the group themselves but yes the word presume or presumption in a criminal statute is almost certainly I mean that's what that's what the implications are sited say if it's going to be held unconstitutional I mean that's been that's been a clearly established and in this case the thing that you're presuming is you would be presuming is the culpable mental state hi E. purpose that that's the purpose shows up missed represent climbing mention it shows a couple times there but in the presumption if they put in the definition what is the definition of purpose conscious object to gauging conductor because such a result so anything that has presumably is exemption in there is is company constitutionally deficient now you could strike that and strike purpose and have a strict liability offence I think that would be bad policy project for all the permutations and the you have an and caressed five situations but you simply cannot presume you cannot create a culpable mental state and then president. Collins said you have a follow up Gazaway you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair Mr Rosenzweig at a ten degree with your argument here. The state's burden to prove. The couple mental state is not. Two point. You can't presume that that's correct by statute yes that's correct state's burden yes but I guess my question is because I heard it mentioned here a couple of times that there are other states have similar statutes they have not been found to be unconstitutional or are you aware that I have I have it all right I haven't researched that bad US Supreme Court was the deciding into the so I'm assuming that if it if the on the if a presumption would would be equally deficient any surrounding state as it would be here but I I haven't researched the text of the statute. Per se hacen you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair. So in your opinion what it what you said you we could strike all of this and make it strict liability but do you think that it would cure just to say that this would only apply in situations this potential new crime would only apply in situations in which the officer was in uniform the officer identified himself and so as to distinguish between you know an undercover officer or something or is that still run into the presumption is of the as long as if you were to strike if you were to strike section. C.. which is last two lines of. of Page one and within the first five lines of two of Page two you would in other words getting rid of the presumption you wouldn't you wouldn't to have the constitutional problems of the burden shifting that state would have the burden of proving purposeful or whatever other culpable mental state you were to assign to it that is the point that I'm making is is this bill is unconstitutional because it creates a culpable mental state then creates a presumption that that the state has proven. Representive Underwood you're recognized for a question. this end this question maybe better for the the bill sponsor maybe just at the end of what I can you can answer later but the representative has always point I guess my question is does this bill matching you probably don't know this but this this bill match what other states have done and especially in light of some of the points are made about whether it's constitutional or not and again I can get an answer on that later if I need to purchase. President Collins you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair and I I just look through a few of the other ones in other states and they don't mention about a presumption was the ones I saw but they do say have reasonable cause to know that it's an officer who would that be acceptable under the constitution well yeah because that well that's that creates of. The the word reasonable creation of an objective standard okay thank you I wish the courts of have consistently help such. Members any other questions thank you Mr president thanks for your testimony thank you in which we have Chief Carmichael to speak for the bill. Mr Carmichael are you in the room. You come the in the table and identify yourself you're recognized to make your statement. Whatever G. Carmichael I'm a chief at the camp Robinson police department. speak in favor of this bill You know as a former no for a police officer I've encountered some of the same types of You can counted as with people who are combative and I feel like. The resisting arrest okay is just this does not have enough meet whatever gets into court and The couple mental state of someone who is attempting to pull your gun from your host or. That says so much you know why are you trying to this army and what is it you are going to do my my thoughts are you're going to try to take my life or somebody somebody's life at the scene that I'm sworn to protect and. I think that we need to have something other than resisting arrest fighting over a gun in the mud in the ditch a lot of you probably never done that you know I have and those are things that after it's all said and done you know the only charges you have as a resisting arrest we need to do a little bit better and state of Arkansas and ideal for any questions then there's any questions. Thank you for being here today thank you we have no one else is signed up to speak for against the bill representive when you're recognized to come to the into the table clothes for your bill. Gazaway you're recognized thank you madam chair I. Representative wing course I have the utmost respect for you this is your bill you're entitled to with it what you want. But I do think Mr Rosen swag has has made a really good point about presumptions of the defendant's mental state I don't know you know if that's something that you would consider pulling down to strike that and bring it back because otherwise I don't find it really objectionable I thank but I do think he makes a good point there ward may be is that something that you would be agreeable to ending on the Senate and to bring it back here at I just think it's point is really well taken so I just thought I would ask before we go any further absolutely and but let me first the deferred to lieutenant Scott here has has some additional insights we have we have matched language that has stood the test of years in in our language we we match that with other states but let me asked lieutenant Scott. Manage your committee. When represented wing. What I would listen to me about this this idea to try to help all law enforcement state we literally took because the state of Texas law and because it had been in place for many years that's what first discovered the if all this already and was that we had no such law on the books here and I knew that wasn't in a law enforcement community we lowly took the law almost word for word but laws been in place for at least fifteen years maybe longer it's been a long time and and books it's been it's been used many many times it is I think it's great environment of a great better a safer environment for please optional what consider Texas of I know so officers who work like for Dallas PD. Either transported from their end and as I became a police commander I've been asked several times by somebody other officers okay from the state of Texas is why we didn't have this law and I think that was the model we use it I think it was it's it's been there for a long time so it's something that makes look at I mean. So thank you ma'am and representative Gazaway to meet your concerns and anybody else on the committee as well I would you have my absolute word that if there is any issue with this and given the timing of the session and given the timing of we've got the next week off we have plenty of time to fix order to to be able to meet anybody's needs not be very happy. Not sure where Mr Rosenzweig is but be very happy to talk there is right there be very happy to talk with him as well we do feel like we have matched what other states have done which those statutes have stood the test of time but we do have the ability to fix order to if it would help clean up tighten it up for you so I would ask for a good vote at this point especially with where we are in the session and then we will fix anything that does need to be fixed if it does need to be so that we can take your bill back up on the twenty seventh if you wanted to fix it that would be the Tuesday we got back on the twenty eight the to see we got back and then it would be fixed and then you wouldn't have to. Get caught in course there's a trying to fix it down there and then get back to our agenda for concurrence and then back to the house floor so if you came to us on Tuesday with your fix it would be out on Wednesday you could still get to the Senate without without there being a back and forth that would be my only concern but it your bill as we often say for presuming affects is needed we could we could go that route so yeah I'd be happy to do that if that with that meets the needs of the committee happy to do that I don't. It are you asking to pull it down so you can make to fix and come back on the twenty eighth well but we have a special order that day but look at what you in at the first we've heard the testimony we won't have to take any more testimony you won't need to bring your witnesses and we can then look at that take up your take up your amendment and move forward that way absolutely that would be fine I think that might be your quickest route okay okay let's do that I appreciate that. What what my analysts is just telling me what we'll need to do that day is will we now we're going to expand your amendment that added your sponsors and you'll bring back your sponsor amendment and your fix will take that all up real quick on that Tuesday okay members to add a motion to expunge the vote on the amendment I have a motion is there any discussion so you know procedurally what we're doing we're trying to get it all in mind so representative when can bring it all at once any discussion on expanding that vote on the amendment saying no discussion all in favor please say aye any oppose the ayes have it we've expunge that that representive wing not to try to slow you down but I think come I think the committees heard everything they need to hear on that I don't think there's an objection to your bill it's just this language in this committee is kind of we. I don't really like to say we're gonna amended on the Senate. The. We will help you out in the mean time and I'm sure Mister Rosen swag he is good about offering his opinions good bill. Thank you for. Thank you thank you Committee representative Wayne while I have you down at the table and since we've Got you there members let's move to Senate bill four oh one Senate bill four one. I saw Senator Leding kommen he may of. Left. But let's take up Senate bill four to four oh one representative when you're recognized to present that bill thank you madam chair thank you committee this is a very exciting bill Haas as before one deals with rapid DNA technology which is a new technology that allows you to be able to get the DNA within ninety minutes and that takes place after booking would be allows law enforcement to make decisions very quickly and very importantly before potentially releasing someone who is a dangerous known felon to other law enforcement agencies hi my work on this issue began about a year ago when high met with people from the DNA justice project as well as our state crime lab leaders we began meeting monthly to determine if rapid DNA could be utilized in the State of Arkansas house so we the result of those monthly meetings in part is as before want this is a nice piece of bipartisan legislation as well Senator Leding is working on this on the Senate side and it also really kind of started with senator former state senator Keith Ingram who was working on this issue for quite a while but then it became a personal issue for him and this is actually the name of the act it is named after Liza Fletcher you may remember the news reports of lies she was the jogger in Memphis who was abducted and brutally murdered on one of her morning jogs this just happened last year it became national news well she was the daughter of a family friend of state senator Keith Ingram and so what how this relates is that just a few days after she was abducted and murdered the results of a DNA test from a previous rape and. Rustication from nine months prior that resulted that DNA test came back three days after the murder was apprehended and named him as the perpetrator in that rape as well had the rapid DNA been available to those authorities he probably would not have been stalking the streets in Memphis that night or the early morning and Liza Fletcher would very likely still be alive today and so that that that's a little bit of a background history of what the people who have been working on this project have read that allows for the results to be within ninety minutes of Louisiana was the first state to do this and saw immediate results in being able to capture people that were in that booking process and identify weight this person is wanted for a serious crime somewhere else and they were able to keep that person detained rather than letting them loose back out and so I have brought miss Ashley Spence from the DNA justice project here she has a of a compelling story and and is would desires to be able to share that with you And so madam chair with your permission that dispensing fuel identify yourself for the record mean make your statement thank you madam chair matter members thank you madam chair members of committee actually Spencer the NHS's project I was nineteen years old about to begin my sophomore year at Arizona state I went to bed one night as I always did thinking I was safe in my own home but this night I wasn't an intruder entered my apartment smother my face with the hello turn off my clothes and began to rape beat and nearly killed me. I under the structure for hours throughout the night and I never saw his face but I was fortunate has survived but before he got away he said do not tell anybody I will be watching you and I will tell you. I would say and I would detectors but there were no leads and was paralyzing so I dropped out of school and the two proposed California and eventually relocated back to my home state of Texas it was there seven years later that I got the shocking phone call there was a DNA match ironically I move to Newport beach to escape this man but in reality I move to the very city he lived in when they caught him they arrested him for a different offense trying to break into a home just a few blocks from where I lived all those years he resisted the officer a felony and painfully FOR NET shared by which you are hiding eighteen states currently have upon all felony arrestee and it's taken they took those cheeks not they uploaded into the national database code as an incident match back to my kids all those years before. He was he was married with the sign and he had a shed behind his home for women's underwear and ID cards from all over the world we waited on trial for five years partly because we were waiting on the Supreme Court ruling and thankfully in two thousand thirteen in Maryland V. king how that taking again eight six what the qualifying have a reasonable part of the booking procedure so we went to trial because of DNA evidence me incredible team of heroes I'm like he's he's now in prison for one hundred and thirty years unable to harm someone else again I am fortunate I survived and I have justice but all victims deserve justice a study by rain shows that one hundred raids ninety seven point five percent of route this go free this must change now we have tremendous success with a DNA databases they are some of the most powerful tools for law enforcement I am honored to be here in Arkansas the work that the hi my vendor payment channel and all of the shares what you all have done in the legislation to expand the DNA database has been huge and I'm really excited the potential rapid DNA for where we can go with that and we know the more that we can enhance the database in a just way more hits we're gonna get now we are freezing and nationwide crisis of uncollected offender DNA so it's awfully known as lawfully owed the department of justice estimates prepared between forty to fifty thousand uncollected offender DNA samples per state I believe in Arkansas were right around forty two thousand I've seen much more from other states on fifty four thousand so that means people that the DNA as the law stands we're missing it and I could be because of this court orders or court hearings some people simply don't know some people fleeing war and manual intake air so these are just samples either violent predators that are on our streets and this moment right now that we know of committed other crimes so what is the solution well one fantastic tool is rapid DNA within ninety minutes while a suspect is in custody and. Not only can we see if they are connected to any really serious crimes like rapes and homicides around the country but we can exonerate people within ninety minutes this is changing the future of the criminal justice system property and they can also help with a bill and bond we can find really informed decisions here it can help with uncorrected offender DNA and with the retail background because we can do amazing work on me can't reform but if we don't have the other side the DNA we're not going to get the heads and just very quickly I know we're short on time Florida International University study shows that rapid creates increased database entries which decreases crime by three hundred percent this will help the overwork of the crime labs and in the end can help us to eliminate the backlog so we know we can also House with cost savings rapidly enable create efficiencies it can save money and save lives and I just want to say I am so grateful to be here and every single night when this man was on the street I was haunted by my own demons but mostly I would hear the muffled screams in my head of his next victim he was out there but now he's in prison and today we have the opportunity to come together to ensure that our children you never have to enter the US and so when we are looking at preventing crimes and preventing tomorrow's victims every minute counts we don't have to wait days weeks months years we can do it in ninety minutes I thank you all so much for your time I am truly honored and grateful to be here thank you misspent members are there any questions of this bill sponsor representative clearly you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair and this isn't really for the bill sponsor but I'm just curious if at some point the crime lab Committee and I see in here who come up and answer a few questions for us. You identify yourself for the record in okay and on the director for the state crime lab thank you colonel representative Clowney you're recognized thank you madam chair and I really appreciate the testimony about why this is so important I'm I'm just trying to put together the pieces of exactly what it is that we're talking about could you explain it to somebody who knows nothing about this area please absolutely and really what this bill does it gives the opportunity for booking stations to actually put this piece of equipment in the facility and the reason that's important obviously if you saw her testimony because it does process that DNA sample in ninety minutes without any kind of intervention from a forensic scientist at all so what happens in ninety minutes it'll search select target batch profile it basically any unsolved sexual assault case any unsolved homicides immediately checks cross checks that and then within twenty four hours it searches of the state and it searches the nation for any other associations so if you get an association the database what that does it give law enforcement than probable cause and then they'll then issue a warrant for an additional sample from that individual and that's what our forensic scientists will analyze and testified to in court. That in to represent Collins you're recognized. Thank you madam chair and I apologize you know I think this this bill I'm just not working out of your I don't think that I have a whole lot of chances to review what it does but what is it requiring and we're not allowing the rapid DNA. The test to be in the book concessions before I mean with that band by law wasn't banned by law but in order to engage in rapid DNA booking station of you have to abide by federal regulations and one of the things we have to have the ability or the authority to actually analyze the DNA profile in a booking station so this will give us that road map if you will to do that and with the crime lab would be responsible for developing all the policies and procedures all the training all the certifications for those individuals in the booking station to make sure we're abiding by all federal guidelines to be able to search those DNA Pro subprofiles of the state and national level follow please you're recognized so does this bill allow you need DNA sampling of any people that was not allowed under previous law is it expand that all or not it doesn't expanded what it does it will check door at the at a booking station when you go into your vote for an offense it'll check the AC I see database and make sure that you are number one have a qualifying offense and if you have a qualifying events it will then prompt you to take the DNA sample which is a real important thing that we need to accomplish and like you for testimony before in Arkansas the figure is correct we've got approx me forty two thousand individuals just cents twenty fifteen one Arkansas became an all rescue state of individuals who lawfully owe us a DNA sample and so we're looking into other avenues other than rapid DNA as well to make sure we increase of compliance with that in every booking station one more filed for your recognized okay so. In. Making someone supply their DNA without their consent is already allowed under Arkansas law in that would not be changed one way or another with this bill this is just about the technology and putting in more places basically of that's that is correct okay thanks. Members represent under you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair. I fully support this the question I have is is there anything in the wall this is at the Washington County jail collects a DNA sample they need to hustle it to the crime lab within X. amount hours or something. And no there's not and I think that's one of the problems with the existing system if you if if but not a wash in county is collected there's no time frame for them to it to give us that sample at the crime lab so um ended very soon every county it's going to be really on the time it takes them to deliver that arrestee sample to us so again there's not any consistent statute that requires them to deliver it at a certain time. Represent a you need to follow up representing under yes ma'am you're recognized Would you like to see a statute that those in twenty four hours or. All the for my partners in law enforcement. The representative Richard said you're recognized for a question thanks manager at I'm just curious if because I like the bill I'm just if it's going to booking stations what's the cost of these machines and will they be able to afford to bring them in well that's one of the things that this this bill doesn't have anything in there about cost it doesn't mandate the use of that I was on the Committee of the woodworks and wing that looked at rapid DNA and the committee did come with the recommendation that yes it's a it's appropriate scientific instrumentation to place in booking station and we do have appropriation bill out there four I believe it's one point eight million and that would put it into counties this test sites for two years okay thank you. Members any other questions. Thank you for your testimony today seeing no other questions we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representative when you're recognized because for your bill I thank you madam chair thank you committee for your time on this this this bill as a result of a lot of months of effort working in a very extensively with state crime lab and of course the DNA a project as well thirty states have this type of language this allows us to join that and this build merely is just permission to be able to use and so without I would appreciate a good vote. Members of representative when his closed we have a motion to do pass on the table was there any discussion of the motion saying no discussion all in favor please say aye in the opposing of the ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill thank you madam chair thank you Committee. The field you're recognized go the in the table of president house bill fifteen forty seven. Thank you madam chair met the field issue fifty three Russellville madam chair permission to. Bring a witness appear yes to the table thank you like to welcome ten Loggains. Thank you. Thank you madam chair of the committee members my name is Tim Loggains I'm on executive board member of gun owners of Arkansas. Represent the field you're recognized to present your bill yes ma'am thank you madam chair committee rented a house bill fifteen forty seven this is to divide the loaded firearm for the purpose of the statute concerning position use of a weapon cation wondering. Y. decided to bring this bill up in and to find this in the rest of the one in my district there was some concern from not just the constituents but from local attorneys and judges that I know that a loaded firearm is not currently defined. And so we're bringing this bill before you today. To define a loaded firearm so that in different parts of the state when stuff like this come before the judges that there's a there's an understanding of what exactly loaded firearm is. Members any questions of the representative council you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair represent Duffield I understand the the need for definition I appreciate that my question is about why we've settled on one man operation of any mechanism and so I just have kind of mechanical questions about how this works if for instance you've got a safety on. Photo op and then pull the trigger would count by my count as two manual operations meaning that under this bill if it were adopted as law a loaded gun with the safety on would not what we would consider voted would not count under the definition of loaded firearm is that correct yes represent Clowney Mr Loggains can answer that. Love thank you for the question ma'am we researched various states in their definitions and and we actually mirrored the definition that you tell else I believe this is the exact language that came from the state of Utah that was chosen simply because it was one of the more concise and and and less wordy definitions and still accomplish that to answer questions directly to to operations would be Not pulling the trigger counting as an operation you enough and you have to actually chamber around so if you have a safety you have to change around and then flip the safety off. You're recognized since I hear your answer I'm just wondering what that based on I mean what where. The definition many operation right is something that you do with your hand and so I'm just trying to to make sure that the that the wording of the bill expresses what it is that we're trying to express I believe if you look at One twenty seven when it says contains amount expended cartridge in and shall a projectile in a fine position. including without limitation to when when when you look at that they would have to be in the firing position number one before the two main operations are required so we would actually have to chamberlain on and then required something else besides that taken the safety off and pulling the trigger. If that if that answers your thank you yes. Members any other questions. Seeing no further questions. We have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representative Duffield you're recognized to close for your bill yes ma'am Bills yes ma'am committee thank you for your time today it back to make a motion to pass thank you. Members represent the pills because first bill is made a motion to do pass is there any discussion on the motion seeing no discussion all in favor please say aye any oppose same the ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill thank you manager thank you Committee. Represent Lundstrum you're recognized come to the in the table percent house bill fifteen seventy seven. Thank you chairman Dalby fifteen seventy seven I I feel like a representative **** is just given name the greatest run way in the world to present this bill this is on the statue of limitations for rape in Arkansas what it does is remove the statue of limitations if there has been a rape kit done and it also requires that all right kids because lectern and stored in the crime lab I'd like to thank cramming channel for having input on this bill and taking a good close look at it it also takes the anonymous rape kits which are not collected properly there of the body of different ways we have seventy five different counties trying to do it seventy five different ways and this would allow those anonymous rape kits to be held by the state crime lab until they are properly processed so. With that I will open it up for any questions the members are there any questions. Represent clearly you're recognized for a question thank you ma'am I'm sorry I should know this but I don't can you talk about the current statute of limitations for rape victims in Arkansas it's only six years thank you. Members any other questions. Represent a guess what you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair at I do want to point out so we make a distinction in Arkansas law between the statute of limitations for rape victims reminders my recollection is that we eliminate the statue invitations for rape victims are minors that's correct so this is statue invitations for rate that we're discussing here today applies to adults is that right yes. Represent the field you're recognized for a question yes ma'am thank you madam chair representative last on this bill is it in regards to the DNA or does it eliminated state you women to limitations for accusations of rape don't let me be let me be very clear when a this doesn't allow somebody to come back twenty years later just to the he said she said this is when the right kit is done when a white kid is Dennis when a victim goes the emergency room and the doctor will collective idea of different samples from coming people care to taking in that under AB would stick under the fingernails describing them out there a nest of the China everything you can imagine even a hair sample from the victim under clothing all of that stuff has to be stored and has to be the research and DNA has to be collected from that so that information is stored and kept in an anonymous right get the victim hasn't decided whether or not to prosecute yet so all of that has to be held on the statue of limitations that will be removed if a rape kit is done. Yes ma'am thank represent Richmond you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair. Represent Lundstrum just to I know there's some I can hear some chatter initial concern about statute limitation and whether or not it actually applies only to the DNA type situation not a he said she said we're in the bill can you point to that. Helps define what this is limited to do right in the bill on page one line thirty one is strikes whether the victim is a minor just says rate and then it goes into the collection of the rape kit. So it gives you all the information on the right kit and the storage of the rape kit and it gives you the information on the anonymous rape kit. And then it also says how long the rape kit from the time of the kit is collected to the time it's turned over. Represent Collins you're recognized for a question. So just to follow up on absent representatives so the the statute of limitations would be eliminated for already not just situations with his record. It would be very difficult for somebody to come back without a rate that you have to have evidence no prosecutors going to take a case without evidence follow up you're recognized for a follow up when I understand that I think that's part of the reason that we have the statute of limitations is that it's difficult to bring evidence it's difficult for both the prosecutor and the defense if evidence the stale but it checked it could happen now if I could if I understand it though I mean there could be a situation where there is a prosecution even if there's no rape kit and evidences stale under this right. That is yes that's a possibility at any time but this allows the preservation of evidence. And with the preservation of evidence just like the witness before with the preservation of evidence you can have a prosecution but without it there's there's no ability for the prosecutor Steven Act represent guess what you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair I think it would probably be helpful if we could have someone from the prosecuting attorney's association come to present information only. I certainly would would appreciate that. German you're recognized code in the table in a fire so for the record. Thank you for the requested representative Gazaway you have a specific question I guess within you're recognized I do thank you madam chair so just to clarify if you have the opportunity to review this bill today yes and for the record Matt direct prosecutor a for the fourth judicial district and president Arkansas prosecutors Association. Daniel hsu prosecuting attorney for the twelve judicial district and the APA a legislative chair. Okay thank you so when I look at the bill I mean just to clarify because this is been brought up twice now and questioning. the Bill does have provisions that that pertain to rape kits certainly for the very first section of the bill just strikes the statue of limitations for the offense of rape. so this this would include I thank as. As you know this what what your perspective on when you strike the statue limitations for the offense of rape that includes the quote unquote he said she said cases because rape in in some cases you're not going to have physical evidence you're not going to have DNA it's going to be things that have happened after the fact and correct me if I'm wrong but the Supreme Court has said that a victim's testimony standing alone if believed by the jury is sufficient to sustain a conviction for the offense of right and so it it very much opens this up to a he said she said prosecution for rape that could occur at any time am I am I wrong about that well just for clarification purposes this would it would eliminate the statue imitations but you can't when you extend the statue limitations you can extend it you cannot revive it so this is going forward this in a situation where we still would not be able to to prosecute allegations from thirty years ago so once the statue limitations has run its run so anything from that is still within the statute limitations would be extended indefinitely at this point but it is correct we we do that. It's it's not unusual for us to have a case where it's based on victim testimony alone in your correct the Supreme Court has said that victim testimony alone is sufficient so but this isn't a situation where we're going to be we're gonna have the ability to go back thirty years saying guess what you're recognized for a follow up thank you madam chair yes that absolutely agree so there's two issues here about how this would work in practice one issue about revival this does not revive any claims that presently that may exist or that happened previously any incidents that may have happened previously does with Act that's says Dr versus California US spring court case once once the statue limitations expires it expires yeah so the point would be until this bill passes. You would have sixty a person would have six years from that day forward under the statue invitations that existed prior to the passage of this bill. If there was an incentive rate for that case to be prosecuted correct correct okay if the bill passes however going forward. At any point it in the future someone could attempt to commence a prosecution at. And as long as the statue had not expired if it's been five years and three hundred sixty four days. After this passes it's still yeah no but my my point is and understand your point I'm not talking about reviver at this point I'm talking about from the date of passage of this bill if enacted courage after this bill were to become law then there is no date in the future at which they would it would be too late to bring a prosecution and that could be based on a quote unquote he said she said situation that's correct yes. Richmond you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair help me out here just to get some clarification say that in a case where there is DNA that has been collected and somehow fifteen years later this individual pops up and you can be associated with this rate. With absolutely no question. With the with the statute limitation would that prevent prosecution. Well I mean currently yes if it happened fifteen years ago there is an exception if the warrant is sought based on that a DNA identifier it can be extended for fifteen years I'm not mistaken but if you get a you get a hit on a sample that was taken fifteen years ago I don't believe there's a situation which we could prosecute that at this point all right thank you. Members any other questions. A representative will be recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair is there anyway to tie the statute of limitations to the rape kit evidence turned and under that one of these scenarios I would imagine there is because there is currently a a statute where you have you just have a DNA profile and you filed a warrant based on that in a profile then that statue limitations is fifteen years so there could be some mechanism where you could tie it to that it just might make it a little bit while the in terms of I'm I don't know the construction of that and how would be done but I would I would say it could be done. I agree. Member state representative feel you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair just to clarify what again what ages with this bill apply to or not apply to at all ages all ages I thank you right now it's just At which they just applies to minors so it would apply to victims of all ages thank. Represent guess what you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair I seem to recall and maybe I'm wrong I thought a couple of sessions ago we passed a bill that said if there was an unknown offender and there was DNA evidence that we eliminate the statute of limitations in that instance I didn't think. that this fifteen your requirement I guess it's not. That's something that I'm really aware of I'd have to go back and check to be sure I don't know how often my head I think that's correct on the raid there's like other sexual offenses. Up. Matt. This. The manager might be helpful also if I know Mr Rosen swags hearing represents the criminal defense bar I tell you what this residents fled what did you join in on the action. You're antsy to get up and discuss so we'll. Let's just get everybody up here it's a Thursday morning. Illidan a fire so for the record and they will let you enter into the discussion because for Arkansas Association criminal defense lawyers at one point there was a fifteen however the current generation of the statute says however for ray 5-14-103 the period of limitation is eliminated if biological evidence of the alleged perpetrator is identified that is capable of is capable of producing DNA profile that's the current law. I also point out of for the period has not expired although starter says you can't require stronger recognizes you can expand so anything that the statute of limitations has not expired on or whatever reason would be extended in perpetuity this bill passed. Represent Gazaway. That answer my question thank you. Members any other questions. Seeing no further questions should a man thank you for coming to the end of the table and entering into the discussion. We have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representive Lundstrum you're recognized to close for your bill. Okay. If. If I can ask Mister at to speak for just a moment. I don't have I I speak and for the prosecutors association because we have a large enough Sampling to say when the not waive and support or opposition we're definitely not in opposition my me personally I've I have no issue with bill mean the state extended session with patients we do it for minors so personally I I mean I think it's a good idea thank you represent Lundstrum you're recognized close for your bill. Thank you. Thank you colleagues. Right now one in five women and one in fifteen men will be raped in their lifetime and the cost of the victim is a hundred and twenty two thousand per victim. With ninety seven percent of rapists that going through free in our country and most of them are serial rapists I think removing the statue of limitations for rape is incredibly important. I think it sends a message to the rapist but we know you're out there most rapist or serial rapist with DNA evidence and with all the new things in technology happening we need to remove the statue limitations in Arkansas we need to put these rape kits into the hands of our state crime lab we need to assure that these anonymous rape kits are held and we need to remove the statue limitations to send a message to our victims that they are seen and to the criminals that we will eventually get to you and we will come after you I don't think there's a stronger message that can be sent to those victims real change in doing change happens one step at a time and I think Ruth better Ginsburg was right when she said that and I would ask you to please pass this bill. The president Lundstrum is close for his per her bill what are the wishes of the committee. I have a motion to do pass with a motion to pass on the table is there any discussion on the motion. Percent guess what you're recognized. Thank you madam chair just I understand the intent I certainly appreciate it. certainly have been a supporter of victims of sexual assault and rape my entire. Professional career including since I've been in the legislature I do find this This one a little concerning given the fact that you know it it attempts to be sold as we know we have to clear up the rape kit so we need to be concerned about that but we specifically have a long point. This says however for rate under five fourteen one oh three the period of limitation is eliminated if biological evidence of the alleged perpetrators identified that is capable of producing a DNA profile that's the those are the cases that this is kind of attempted being as being sold to protect against but that period of statute of limitations that's been eliminated there is no statute of limitations in those cases so that's not a concern what this duck with this really will do is open up the period of forever for someone to make an allegation that something happened twenty thirty forty years ago potentially and then someone be criminally on the hook for it and you know we have statute of limitations for a reason if the offender is not known certainly that's one thing and again you know with the DNA technology we have we have a statute that's eliminated the the statue limitations in those cases but otherwise you just opened up the statue limitations for a Class Y. felony forever even when you have known offenders I think that some of concerning and I just I can't support the bill today so I'll be voting a. Members any other discussion. Seeing no other discussion we do have a motion on the table all in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no. The nose had at the bills failed. Representing callings represented Lundstrum while we have you at the end of the table members if you'll turn to House Bill thirteen thirty nine. House bill thirteen thirty nine. Represent Lundstrum you're recognized to present house bill thirteen thirty nine thank you madam chairwoman could I have a subject matter expert please come to the in the table yes thank you Alex Miller. Shares of record. Western you're recognized to present your bill thank you chairman Ali this bill is to amend the Arkansas uniform statutory will against perpetuities house bill thirteen thirty nine and actually increases the amount of time assets are allowed to remain in a trust for ninety years to three hundred sixty five years the policy we want to reform in Arkansas is try slot and attract out of state assets to be administered by Arkansas trustees in Arkansas financial advisors and to encourage Arkansas residents to keep their trust assets in state where Arkansas trustees and financial advisors will manage and administer these assets thirty four states have already completed completely eliminated the rule against perpetuities and increase the or increase the length of time those assets can stay in the stress and just to give you an example South Dakota has no rule against perpetuities they were made of that and because of that they've been able to increase their assets. Two five hundred and twelve billion. No and Nevada has also done that and they've also gone to three sixty five in Tennessee Alaska Rhode Island Wyoming Delaware Ohio Missouri and of the list goes on and each of them have increased the assets that have they have brought to the state with that we'll open it up to questions members are there any questions of represent Lundstrum. President Clinton you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair so I think that really and properties is that as as those of us who sat through law school now I'm really really complicated things we just can't explain to colleagues exactly what this does it would it would create a scenario where somebody who had been dead for three hundred and sixty four years right would still have power over things that were left behind after he died it's in policy really for almost all policy makers it. In our legal system and and well before I think probably back to the Middle Ages that we don't write long bad people control assets I understand that but the argument maybe about being at a competitive disadvantage but just as a as a policy point I mean being at a competitive disadvantage isn't compelling enough to me I don't think to overturn really what is centuries of what has been considered a policy so can you explain to me just kind of why we think it makes a good sense to allow long dead people to control these assets in this way. I'm two one comment now that the attorney speak because they speak your language currently and I realize it's a trigger word but right now in Arkansas it's ninety years and so ninety versus three hundred sixty five. At dead people dead people whether this ninety or three hundred sixty five this is about bringing in assets the state of Arkansas increasing the wealth in Arkansas so but I'll let me let him respond because I know that something that I think it's helpful if you identify yourself for the record then you may respond to represent a clown these questions sure my name's Alex Miller I'm an attorney estate planning attorney from northwest Arkansas. I'm with are in P. we're in Arkansas based law firm so I want to get a little more background before I answer your question directly so. What robin is said we introduced a couple bills in this committee a few weeks ago this bill here as a part of a package of bills and the reason that I was asked to come here is in doing estate planning I represent a lot of high net worth individuals that's kind of what our law firm was was built upon and so I deal with these individuals who come to me and come to my law partners and say okay. We want to set up trust for various reasons it may be tax reasons a state asset protection and things like that and they look at and one of the issues is how long can can my assets remain in trust and I'll get to why here in a minute and so when we're giving this advice right now we are not advising these clients to set up these trust in the state of Arkansas these assets are going to Nevada to Texas to Delaware to Tennessee now who has gotten into competing for this business and we're talking about billions of dollars that leave the state of Arkansas which it benefits us so we're not you may look at it is why are we benefiting wealthy people but we are not these people are leaving the state regardless you're benefiting the people here the financial institutions the banks to get to manage these assets the attorneys the accountants that either get to set up these trust prepare tax returns are hired to provide advice on how to administer these assets the insurance professionals the real estate professionals to get this you know sell sell the real estate that's owned by these trucks so that is the policy and I think representive Clowney you under stand that I think your comment was that may not be a compelling enough reason for to overturn a long history line I'm sorry I'm I'm rambling and I know you'll have a lot to get to but I feel like it's important to give you this background to fully answer your question so as you pointed out correctly for those law students there's been perpetuity type laws in existence for hundreds of years and I believe sixteen eighty two was the first obviously one country and so that that started overseas in America the common law rule against perpetuities we learned in law school began in eighteen eighty eight was published in a treatise by Harvard professor and we followed that common law rule until two thousand seven we adopted the statutory rule which is what's in for. Everyone of us today this ninety year rule that you can control property for up to ninety years and yes we're trying to increase that to three hundred sixty five years a lot of these individuals care getting to your answer finally well this is in an a new issue that someone like myself who is not wealthy cares about when I die I care about it's the same premise they care about their families they care about protecting those that they leave behind they want to avoid probate they want to leave assets in trust and make sure that those assets go to individuals they want them to go to but these people think further down the road and just the next generation and when you deal with people with this amount of wealth they're worried about. Because in ninety years when mistrust terminates these assets just leave the trust they stay in the family but they go to these individuals to do whatever they want to with these assets and these wealthy individuals they see the dead disaster that this can cause inside their families and their friends families when people who are financially mature enough to control these assets helpful possession of them and so we build these trust to provide incentives you know we want to make these people that inherit these assets productive citizens that actually contribute to society and you can do that inside of a trust hate. You have to have a job or you're limited to a certain amount of dollars that come out of this trustee year if you do X. Y. NZ and so like I said that that's what these people are concerned about not certainly your point is well taken and I respect that opinion but that's the reason they care and that's why they're leaving this jurisdiction and one other thing I know representative Collins last time I was here I was talking about the campaign and his question was if we pass this the canteen bill are you telling me that this would bring wealth in the State of Arkansas I think my answer was no not at all I mean this is part of a package of bills in my industry not just tax and trust attorneys but also financial advisors and trust companies when they advise their clients on where do you go set up this trust and take your millions of dollars they look at these ranking systems that are out there in the rule against perpetuities one of one of the things that factors in the way the trust this taxes another thing the asset protection afforded to the trust is one and that the canteen statute the rule against perpetuities has the greatest weight on all of these ranking systems and the most notable one that's published by a Nevada Attorney names devotions they get forty percent weight to the rule against perpetuities alone and so it's a big deal when people that advise these clients on where to put their assets they truly look at what is the rule against perpetuities in that state representative Hudson you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so when represented Lundstrum was was doing happening and and I think you both discuss how it is it helps to increase the wealth in the state is it just increasing the wealth to these individuals or how does it benefit the state as a whole. When you look at who is going to manage this you have attorneys accountants banks financial advisers realtors. A lot of different people are going to be benefiting from this. It also look at when people have their assets brought to a state. They're shopping they're gonna shot we want to keep our Kansans wealth in Arkansas they're leaving Arkansas we want to first of all keep our wealth here and we want to attract wealth these other states did this to attract wealth and keep their own wealth here so people are trust shopping and that's that's something we have to we had a look at both ways preserving our our Kansans that are. Finally achieving that wealth and keeping them here and then we also want to attract wealth represent Clowney you're recognized for a question thank you for the follow up to my last question I and. I think there are all sorts of things that we know could bring Arkansas money that we choose against because of our position on whether it is good or bad policy right we could we we know how much money something like recreational marijuana would bring our state we choose not to do it as a as a legislative body because it's not the policy that the majority legislature thinks it's good for the state for a host of other reasons so as I'm doing this weighing I guess what I'm really trying to figure out is I understand that there is some money being lost to these institutions entities if people who are in finance but but what I'm really having a hard time understanding is what is the balance to that that we use in favor of us changing our policy because. Three hundred and sixty five years I mean ninety to three hundred and sixty five years may not sound like a huge amount of time that older than America right they did it to the five years is a very long time if we pass this we are giving people the ability to control asset fifteen eighteen generations after their dad what what is the policy reason what is that what is in it for the majority of our cans and or even the super wealthy our Kansans what makes this good policy the legislature should vote to change after all of these years. The first. well there's not really additional policy than what we've already mentioned I mean this is about keeping wealth in the State of Arkansas and the revenue that this generates in the State of Arkansas can be astronomical I don't know who in this room and and again you may listen to my answer and say that's not compelling I don't care about the money we don't care about bringing more business and economic prosperity here we don't think that outweighs the other other side of the fence so to speak but I do and so I don't know who here remembers the Pandora papers it was this large financial database leak of of financial institutions back in twenty twenty one and it was primarily offshore financial institutions but it also wreaked a lot of data from some of these competing jurisdictions there was no data from the State of Arkansas lead but Tennessee alone it was reported that two hundred billion dollars of assets under management in trust companies in South Dakota I think was already mentioned by representative Lundstrum at five hundred and twelve billion when you look at two hundred billion dollars and you've got that under management with trustees and financial advisors in the State of Arkansas now giving you a simplified calculation here but generally financial advisers and and trustees they start their fee structure at one point two five percent it scales down but between the two professions let's say it's a one percent fee on these assets one percent of two hundred billion dollars is two billion dollars of revenue generated just on that money being managed in those in Tennessee at a five percent tax rate which is our tax rate in the State of Arkansas that a hundred million dollars a year again it's a simplified calculation but it's just to show you an example of what that brings to the state of Arkansas. Representive under you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair. I have to admit moving ancient boundaries move makes me a little bit nervous and I'm trying to think how I might explain this to my late father who is an Andrew Jackson Democrat about the connection between accumulating wealth in the state and let's say something like rule development can you pay me at a picture of that please. I'm not sure if I understand the question about rural development but and I'm not sure what type of Democrat Andrew Jackson was I know I know what most Democrats these days they like taxes they don't want one of the policies behind I don't mean that the disparaging way up I'm just say and. The estate tax is something that has been in existence and the generation skipping tax since about nineteen eighty six this is a tax that make sure that truly wealthy individuals they get a hair cut on their network depending on what the tax rate is in the year of death forty percent right now it's been as high as fifty five percent since I'm practicing law and so we already have these mechanisms in place that were not in place back in the day that already take assets from these wealthy individuals and kind of prevent what was at one point considered one of the policies is Hey let's prevent this feudalistic society where you know all the assets you end up in the hands of a few families well in my mind our taxation system already takes care of that. The rule development question I'm not sure I understood members instant represent under do you have a follow up. Thank you ma'am. If I hadn't said rule development I just would have said investment. Members any other questions represent Gazaway you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair I I am somewhat. Torn on this because I think there's been some really good points made a particularly by representative Clowney you're talking about extending the rule against perpetuities to. More years than our country as a whole and yeah this has to do with. The disposition of property I mean. That's that's a pretty long time to be extending things on the other hand I can't hear you argue that essentially this is a race to the bottom if everybody else is doing it and we might as well to otherwise. You know we're just gonna get left behind and who cares if you have to give away the farm or the consequences may be to raise the bottom so we might as well join. that arguments also concerning to me is there some kind of happy medium that you might be able to find between the three hundred sixty some odd years that you're proposing now and the current the current number of years. with all due respect I consider this a race to the top and I think most people in my profession do for the reasons that I decided as far as what this brings to the State of Arkansas to answer your question specifically. Three hundred and sixty five years you may go where in the world did you all get that number and there's a reason when I first saw this in Nevada and taxes and now where they got the number I'm not sure but it surely. This may seem like a silly response it's marketing this is who we're competing against what you have to understand is there's nine states in the country that have a constitutional prohibition against perpetuities property being able to last in trust forever we are one of those states perpetuity meaning forever and Nevada Texas Tennessee North Carolina they also have these constitutional prohibitions those Florida as well those are the states that landed on three sixteen three sixty five I believe nobody was the first to do it and then these other states just followed in line and fought the same battles as to you know where should we land but. You land on a hundred years a hundred fifty years two hundred years. I don't think that's going to be compelling enough to have the clients leave their assets here I could be wrong but I'd much rather match our competition so that I know that's not a factor that makes one of my clients go to another jurisdiction to park their assets represent guess what you're recognized for a follow up Mr Miller we appreciate your verbose miss but we're on a short time frame a lot of more so if you could kind of condense your answers down it would help the Committee considerably represent Gazaway you're recognized well I appreciate that point but the first thank you manager but the first version of this bill that I saw was that a thousand years so it's like establishing a thousand year kingdom on earth I suppose that you know going to be able to keep your assets sensually for the next thousand years well somehow got will down three hundred six Gazaway if I could do on that one that was my fault I was looking at Florida and a couple of other states and trying to match with those and then we and he corrected me and said we if we want to be a race to the top we need to look at what the best does and that is Nevada and South Dakota and some of these others that are doing a better job and that was the reason I changed it so that was my fault. Well I don't appreciate being interrupted but thank you. my apologies. So the point is you know you're a thousand now your three sixty five. I ask you again is there not some happy medium between where we are now in three hundred sixty five. This is representing collections bill let her answer again I wanted to match what the best way as and that was the best and so if we want to have a quality bill and we want to be competitive we need to look at the states that are doing a good job and they are doing the best job so that's the reason I chose those numbers. Members any other questions representative Richardson you're recognized for a question so thank you Manchester want to make sure I understood so to three sixty five there was no formula for that number is just kind of. Picked out of the air right okay I can answer for how Nevada made their decision not. Members any other questions. We have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representative Lundstrum you're recognized to close for your bill okay thank you madam chair. I'm. I'm a very proud our cans and and I want us to be competitive I want us to have options and bring in Ralph we have to stop thinking as a poor state and start thinking as a wealthy state by changing the rule against perpetuities we are doing just that we are attracting other state other wealthy states where Comcast gives me competing against wealthy states we're bringing in billions of dollars when you look at what the states have done. You look at without the code has done five hundred twelve billion you look at Tennessee two hundred billion. Rhode Island one billion lambing thirty one point five billion. Arkansas deserves to have well stay in this state and we deserve to be competitive. I would ask you for a good vote. Members represented Lundstrum his clothes for her bill with the wishes of the committee I have a motion to pass is there any discussion on the motion to do pass. Seeing no discussion all in favor please say aye. All opposed say no. The nose habit the bill is failed Nicks bill that were coming up with will be among the call on the next bill. Rep Steve Lundstrum can bring your bill back the next bill is going to be. House bill thirteen twenty seven. Okay but just a point of reference when can I bring the bill back you will bring it back we have a special order to see I think you were in here we're going to hear Representive wings bill real quick and I'm assuming you won't need anymore testimony if you'd like to bring it back we can hear it quickly maybe Tuesday when we're back on Thursday of next week but will certainly bring it back yes ma'am I'd like to bring it back please which certainly I'll let you bring it back no problem thank you thank you colleagues for your time. The president Gazaway. Thirteen twenty seven this is a concurrent Senate Amendment I know we can get that it. You're recognized to present your concurrence. Thank you madam chair Member's house bill thirteen twenty seven is a bill that we only passed on this committee through the House. thank nearly unanimously it concerns the contraband or seize property by law enforcement. Agencies allowing them the ability to trade that to a licensed federally licensed firearm dealer in exchange for credits toward future purchases The Amendment there that came from the Senate. Basically says that they in order to provide some accountability for how that properties being traded that list has to be provided to the quorum court that oversees the finances in the operations the law enforcement agency which basically details the credits that received in exchange for the property that was traded this provides some again transparency and accountability it it doesn't changing the substance of what we allowed when we vote on the bill initially so that's what the amendment does we're here to concurrent is in the Senate amendment I'm happy to answer any questions members you've heard the explanation are there any questions. And guess what you're recognized to close thank you manager I'm close for the bill make a motion to pass members have a motion to concur in the Senate amendment is there any discussion all in favor please say aye any opposed say no. The ayes have it we have concurred let's look at house bill twelve ninety six this is a technical corrections bill Mr Miller are you still here. We have an amendment that's being passed out real quickly. Guess what you're recognized to present the amendment to house bill twelve ninety six. Thank you madam chair As you may know is the committee knows I have Mr Miller here with us from the bureau and I know that he has worked very diligently to prepare this amendment the amendment is essentially the substance of the bill the bill of course was to replace certain language within the code to use more respectful language when referring to individuals with disabilities and Mr Miller was involved in the search throughout the code to ensure that we found all the references and change those again to to more respectful language thing Mr Millican probably provide some more detail and so with that I'd ask Ballinger that Mr Miller be allowed to explain these your Mr Miller fuel identify yourself you may explain good morning everyone Matthew Miller with the bureau Legislative Research as I usually do I'm here to either testify for against the bill but this is a code revision commission bill and we're staff the bureau staffer the commission as well so I'm here to help explain. the commission asked us to do a bill that cleaned up all the references to the term handicapped in the code to come to their attention through rehab services that they had some references in their statutes that they wanted to correct in the civil while we're doing that let's get them all we have a statute in Arkansas that directs us on how to address respectful language it this favors terms like disabled or handicapped and asked the when the laws drafted but the individual before the disability so use terms like individual with disabilities that's the effort that was undertaken in this bill in some places it was a little trickier than just plugging in individuals with disabilities but the respective agencies reviewed this and we're confident that the language. Met there met their goals and also captured the intent of the statute. That's all I have but I'm happy to take any questions members are there any questions on the amendment to house bill twelve ninety six represent Duffield you're recognized thank you madam chair. this references respectful language so who who determines what is respectful language to someone per se in a wheel chair with one leg. And the term respectful language is taken out of the statute that tells how to what terms to use so that's where the term respectful language came from in this context in this case we were simply following the intent of a statute which is to try to use terms like individual with a disability and when this bill in the sections affected specifically referred to a situation like visual impairment you know we went with a visual individual with a visual impairment as opposed to the previous term which was visually handicapped. So I mean I can't speak to the other contacts but to the extent we were all kind of a search and destroy mission in the code for these handicapped references that was the methodology we used. Hello you're recognized thank you membership so this but the statute who determined the statute at this respect language to true that up the General Assembly enacted that it was passed in two thousand five two thousand seven thank you Sir membership had an explanation of the amendment represent guess we you close for your business close for the amendment would make a motion to adopt the amendment members have a motion to adopt the amendment is there any discussion seeing no discussion all in favor please say aye any opposed amendments adopted now you're recognized to present your bill as amended thank thank you madam chair so we basically heard an explanation of the amendment which is in essence the bill so I think you heard an explanation of the bill I do want to say with respect to the point that the representative Duffield made that I think the what he's probably getting at there is you know we talk about respect the language You know we want to be careful about. Going too far with that I don't think anyone necessarily meant any disrespect certainly back in the day when they use terms like handicapped or you know physical or mental deficiency per se it's it's just that you know there may be better ways to say it now that that mean the same thing And so you know again at I do understand your point the we don't want to get to the point where everything is considered disrespectful and they were constantly you know having to amend our laws to you know suit some kind of. the most recent politically correct agenda but in this case I think there were these are good changes and that are in line with the. In line with what most people whose. May feel of more appropriate so that kind of at a loss for words but that's what the bill does I think the intent is good and I would appreciate a good vote any questions seeing no questions represent guess we close for you bill and are you making a motion to do pass because for the bill make a motion to pass members we have a motion to do pass as amended on house bill twelve ninety six any discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion please say aye any opposed say no the ayes have it the bill has passed. Members where. Getting awfully close and we've got representative Gazaway had a number of Bills I see no one else. Here I think in light of the time what we're going to do is to stay we have a special order Tuesday morning. I'm sorry. UP representive wing is going to be here that bill representive Lundstrum will be back on the bill we just heard to see will take those up I'm anticipating Tuesday morning let's prepare Tuesday afternoon. To get out some of these bills because I had indicated to you we kill Senate bill two O. four house bill fifteen oh three. House bill three forty two today those will be the first bills will take up Tuesday afternoon we're just gonna have to come back this late date in the session those will be the first bills will take up no. Senate bill three forty two yes we'll take those up Tuesday afternoon we also will have some other bills that I would anticipate another representive Underwood has house bill sixteen thirteen will you be prepared Tuesday afternoon on that one. Okay that we're talking about the twenty eight we're not talking about next Tuesday so the twenty eight. We will take that one up. and I would anticipate that we will take up House Bill sixteen twenty three. And. representing more you're running on the health side Senate bill three seventy three with record with senator Caldwell. You ready to take that up to see the twenty eight we'll put that down on Tuesday the twenty eight. Is there anyone. Here in the committee that's running the house side of Senate bill three sixty six with senator Bryant Senate wrecking ringing a bill. Okay well that gives us a full day Tuesday so as they say pack your luggage and we'll take up doll that Tuesday represent guess what you have a puzzled look on your face well at I understand that it's noon and do you have something you think you can do it quickly I have two or three that I think could go pretty quickly. Okay we'll give you a little time in. At first to be a House bill fifteen a one. Member's house bill fifty no one. House Bill fifteen NO one to mend Arkansas law concerning when a prosecution is commenced house bill fifty no one you're recognized to present your bill thank you madam chair thank you committee I appreciate the indulgence staying just a little after noon but these hopefully won't take long I reference this when we did the title this bill when we did the title five technical corrections bill this we've made some technical corrections and we're gonna make technical corrections to this section and ultimately realize that this whole section needed to be re work to be a little more clear and so what this section concerns as well prosecution is commenced and so the old section rather prosecution is commenced when an arrest warrant is issued by a judge based on probable cause and that had been changed in a just a previous session or an indictment information or other charging instrument of the arrest one other process is sought to be executed without unreasonable delay is there to be more clear what we did is we set out really the in three separate paragraphs when a prosecution is commence based on existing law also want to prosecution is commenced when a person is arrested. or issued a citation by a law enforcement officer based upon probable cause that is consistent with current law two when arrest warrant is issued by a judge provided that the arrest warrant is sought to be executed without unreasonable delay again that's consistent with current law or upon the filing of an indictment information or other charging instrument all of this is a more accurate statement of law when a prosecution is commenced again it was kind of caught during the techno correct corrections bill but and I think this probably is kind of in the form of a technical question that's what the bill does And I'm happy to answer any questions represent Collins you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so I I do have a couple questions about this so you think that one is consistent with current law because it it reads to me like it might be a little bit broader when you're talking about arrest which is really a a police action in this context as opposed to the charging instrument which really is it looks like in most other cases what we're talking about here and citation part makes sense to me but the arrest without the charge it seems to me like the in that situation the prosecution would would begin in our understanding when it's charged the other thing is there is a situation here where you know you have the charge that's three so in this situation we have an arrest and then you have a charge that follows on why we need to start with the charge. Okay the there's a. And now we've got some folks in the prosecutor coordinator's office here who can help probably answer this to some degree but basically I think it goes back to this is concerning statute of limitations Business and so speedy trial process begins to run from the date of arrest okay that's the current law Hang on just just one second so speedy trial begins to run from date of arrest and there are some instances of for example a citations are probable cause warrants. I would commence a prosecution for purposes of stopping the statute of limitations clock that's that's also existing law this some. Some arrests are not made by arrest warrants they're just made by officers out in the field making arrests and there never is an arrest warrant and so you would just go you would relate back to the date that the arrest occurred. For purposes of when the prosecution commenced I'm not sure that that's answer your question but follow up with you recognized no I appreciate it but so in that situation where you've got and the rest is not based on probable cause warrant. You also have a charge at some point to follow on if you are going to have prosecution and that charge would come after the arrest right so you've got two things in here one is the arrest and then one is that the charging instrument and. You know of course in some cases there is no charge and so you know in it we've got it here it starts with an arrest even if there's no charge and therefore no prosecution that doesn't seem like an intended result. Seems like you might want to start the clock with the charge and which is one of the options you would have an year and three. so you don't have situations where you are saying that the prosecution when there's only been arrested or charged. Okay. So I understand your question and I understand why you would think that. There was a lot of research done when we put this together including analyzing. lots of cases previous rules and it was felt that this was consistent with existing law I don't have that existing law here with me at the moment. But. And just second. Could we bring them up someone. I don't know if that helps. Shall I mean I just want to help it out I would I would love for them to help because. While I was involved in the drafting I'm asking the there was a lot there's a lot of research that kind of went on behind the scenes as to what would be an accurate statement of law about when the prosecution should be commenced. Yeah that does so that you not I'm I'm kind of being telepresence misdemeanor cases you don't have a charging instrument that are filed in those cases you have a docket prepared by the District Court but there's not a you don't filing information in a misdemeanor there's no indictment in a misdemeanor there's no real charging instrument there's just the arrest there may be a citation is issued to court to court But that's why we say when the person is arrested or a citation by law enforcement officers issued based on probable cause that accounts for those types of cases where there are The other artificial charging instruments and they may not be a warrant that's issued so I think. That's specifically the issue there but it's kind of come back to me now but. German if one of you will notify yourself if you can shed a little light on this quick bill we were taking. dentist to prosecutor you talked to this district and the A. P. A. chairman chair person sorry about that In reading this it's the earliest day and I don't know if that by adding at I mean if you got arrested and didn't get charged for thirty days the statute and let's say you were running up on a one year statute imitations the fact that you got arrested a month earlier that would be the date to satisfied that it was you were charged you were arrested in it could it's closing the statue limitations then you got to thirty days later than speedy trial is is running that whole time from the time you got arrested. Forward if that makes sense. Well if I may I don't realize it says in here somewhere that I'm not saying or elsewhere in code I don't think it says the earliest of and second of all I mean it does seem like tell me if I'm wrong it allows for a situation where someone's arrested but not ever charged to sister there's been a prosecution commenced I don't even think that would be accurate and lest you think otherwise no on I agree with you on that but. If if there's no charge ever filed in this the. Okay so you're saying aye somebody somebody is arrested. And the no charges filed so within I mean it really wouldn't die if you will the prosecution would died to the speedy trial runs. Go ahead I was so right so I think the issue is you have to understand the stock that the clock has to be stopped somewhere on the statute of limitations okay so the issue is whether we stop the clock on the running of the statue limitations well that the clock is stopped when the request is made the clock is stopped if there's a citation issued by a law enforcement officer based on probable cause the clock is stopped if there's an arrest warrant issued by judge the clock is stopped if there's an information indictment charging instrument that's about not every case is there going to be an indictment and information or charging instrument sometimes there's just going to be an arrest the issue is is where do you stop the clock on the statute of limitations running and you stop the clock on the statute of limitations running when an arrest is made that's the point that's correct that's act that is consistent with current law that is correct one last follow up I'm sorry your you're recognized okay but there will always be something to charge them right I mean even if there's not an information indictment there will be a citation why couldn't you just set aside Tatian I wouldn't it be something always other than the rest some of my district courts are different than the others and some of them know for Smith district I filing information often times in the the Greenwood district. It'll just have the charge on the docking. And and I think your point I'm not sure exactly what you're getting at but I think to your point yeah for protection of the defendant for instance. If an arrest is made and that stops the clock for purposes the statue limitations and saying that prosecution is commenced after that they're not brought to trial within one year it is going to be dismissed for speedy trial this actually helps the defendant I think in starting and stopping the clock when we know that a prosecution is commenced at the time that an arrest is made So if that's if that's where you're going with your questioning about how this affects the defendant whether it helps or hurts them I think it actually would help the defendant to say that the clock is stopped when the arrest is made because at that time also speedy trial begins to right Uh this is just an actor once again more an accurate statement of law as to when the statute of limitations is stopped. And and again they're at several instances when the rest is made with the citation is issued when an arrest warrant issued or when an indictment information or other charging instruments filed there any in any one of these situations will stop the clock for purposes of the statute of limitations. Which actually probably interest of the benefit of the defendant. If that's what you're concerned about. Members any other questions. I'm sorry representative would apologize it took me awhile yeah. President Gazaway just for reference on the other bills that you mention counted out as quick as this one's been. I think I'm just going to wait until till Tuesday. Members any other questions skews me we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill represent Gazaway you're recognized to close for your bill close your bill the snack your statement law will help prosecutors well dependents to know when the prosecution is commenced when the statue of limitations is stopped as the purpose of the bill would appreciate a good vote make a motion to pass thank you members of the motion to do pass on the table is there any discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no ayes have it you've passed your bill. Represent Gazaway is thrown in the white flag. Members. Cuse me before we get away we do have the two special orders on Tuesday and for those who may have come in and not come in the room we're also going to take up Tuesday morning before the Special orders represented wings bill that he pulled down and representative Lundstrum the bill on thirteen thirty nine those would be the first two bills before we start the special order Tuesday morning then Tuesday afternoon represent gas well you've got a lot of bills and so let's you and I get together and figure out to get him in and out are there any questions as to what we're doing this will be Tuesday the twenty eight any questions all right with that thank you for your time we are adjourned.