Judiciary Committee - Senate

Favor say aye. Request denied of. Senator Penzo if you would like to go to the and the table and present Senate bill three ninety. Yeah yeah he's got it thank you. Thank you Mr members of the committee this bill SB three ninety adds criminal penalties to people that break child trafficking laws if you remember during the last to when I ran into the bill that's found out that there were criminal charges for that broke The There were criminal penalties in place so. The only thing only by if you violate right now there's a fifty two thousand dollar penalty I didn't think that was acceptable if you notice it was brought up about that. Other incident where they were only charge federally and there were no criminal charges for that so what this does is put in place If In addition to civil penalties provided for in subsection eight of this section if they violate that there is a Class C. misdemeanor upon a second conviction of import could be guilty of a Class B. misdemeanor And if if for some reason the there's a injury or death it could be a Class C. misdemeanor and the second could be a Class C. felony. Committee fever next collation of the bill any questions Senator Tucker. I understand what you're trying to do not support my question I was just visiting with the Represents the prosecuting coordinator's office I just don't know how you can really convicted corporation of crime. And I don't know if. I don't know I don't want to get into the debate on Senate bills seven a but I don't know if we should. Put it you know sis a person. The employee you know the employer should be guilty of the crime like that like the manager or some person with knowledge of the working conditions rather than the firm corporation partnership or or whatever the case might be. Let me a. I did ask that question because another senator asked me give me one second and I will get the response that I received. so I'm I'm quite with the AG's office they said if the feds regularly regularly charge companies often times DOJ charges both officers and the company. the question is really whether the corporations agent broke the law the action was within the agent scope of duty and whether the action was designed to benefit the court. Corporation okay. So there is the ability to Sign charges to a corporation. Most of my followers understand that answer but my follow up question would be because that is part of the explanation is that. The feds might charge either the far more the officers or where the case might be so my follow up question is whether the language here. Here's the federal law that authorizes. The feds the department of justice charge either the firm or the officers maybe that. I'm I'm not an expert on what the the way the federal law reads but I would I would guess. That that language probably reads a corporation or its officers. And that's not what's in in this bill. Okay the I know that this language was mirrored modeled after Alabama's state laws so. This is how they have it set up in Alabama You know the. You know a person or corporation I guess you could argue that a person would. Qualifies. One of the members of the. At the bottom bottom line is and and I you know I know we're getting late in session I support what you're doing here I think it's the right thing to do I just wanna make sure that we get the language right so. It's up to you I mean maybe the thing to do is just if you're committed to having a conversation with me about after after the meeting if we if we spot an issue then they will try to amend it I wanna hold up if that's what you're desires given where we are in the session so okay. I mean. I mean. I would be happy to have a conversation with you about to the corporation language if it that is an issue okay. I appreciate. For any other any other questions from committee. Saying no anyone in the audience we have a large and care. Callum's. Thank I think Arkansas advocates I think she was on the way over here okay. The. You a one hold off on voting on this one until she has a chance speak maybe I can. Move on to another one. Yeah I want to hear I'd like to one more time Senator Tucker what was your question. Your last question. My concern is I don't know how you. If you really want to punishing the wrongdoers here. I think it's going to be rare that an employer is going to be an individual person. More almost always the employer is going to be a legal entity of some sort of partnership LLC corporation whatever the case might be. And I don't really know how you can convict the company of a crime and I ask the question I don't know if you want to have a call as Mr magnanimous computers but I was just asking them if they have X. if you can convict a corporation of a crime in Arkansas and and their answer to me was that it's it's very complicated and very difficult so I'm just not sure that the language is. Is where it should be if you're actually trying to hold someone accountable for violating this subchapter. So would what are you suggesting I mean because if the corporations itself is guilty I'm not sure I'd want to remove corporation for you saying something needs to be added to that. Those. An individual and I would say again I don't I don't wanna get into the debates on the other bill but to me it should be someone with with knowledge of the violation of the working conditions so we are you know a manager supervisor supervisors that. York. Senator will leave this up to you. Mr yes do you mind if we if they're willing Mr man with you would you speak to that question Senator Tucker question I put you on the spot. And I know I'm putting you on the spot and I'm still asking your so I apologize for that. Hey Bob if you want. State your name for the record who you're with. But man prosecutor coordinator. I'm trying to look the statute here senator out I know I know that again not specifically of top rated aware of how many times we've actually done this I know it's come up in the context believe or not of a hot check case where I believe the the corporation was prosecuted as well as the agents for knowing that I'm trying to under five two five oh two that's offenses where it talks about charging organization again we just pulled up on the phone I just wouldn't for me with off the top of my head so if I can see exactly what it says here it may help us out here but. It looks like that the conduct a result that we would have to prosecute is it's when an individual in the corporation is engaged in or caused by an agent of the organization while acting within the scope of his or her office or employment on behalf the organization but and I think we could then in that case charge corporation but again I'm not where without doing some additional research how often that's done or exactly how we've done that I just know that under that specific statute I think it does envision a possibility of having that happen but I would have to do some additional research to to know for sure how how we would go about doing that or how often it's done Bob. If it if a truck driver let's say a semi truck driver. Runs over someone. A lot of times the company that he drives for sued. They're held liable along with the driver right in in a civil capacity centers yes Sir. Mask yes I'm Senator thank you Mr chairman by large you know those are financial. that the damages are going to be money in that civil case and you can see why the violation the fine could be easily apply to a corporation or from they've got to pay the fine and and so that's. The the financial penalty whether to crime or civil liability to me makes perfect sense I just have a question about to become a liability. I thank again I'm not I'm not sure I have any doubt to add to what I've already set up again I'll be happy to look at that and see if I can get more specifics on just off top of my head I'm not aware of anything other than that particular statute there. Bills call me if you need need to review. Further we can we can dress is another. Dare I mean I'll leave it up to the Committee sprinters. This is this is Monday of we will probably wouldn't get to this. This week I want to say if you have to mend. You want. So you want to pull the bill down or you want to. Well I so miss Collins commented we just hear from person she sure. There you go I will recognize your state your name recognized you Sir for the record. Thank you Mr chairman. Members of the committee to. Sorry thank you Mr chairman members of the committee on Lara Callum's with Arkansas advocates for children and families I'm sorry I wasn't here earlier when you called you called me sorry about that I got hers as they could I was just gonna let you all know that we were very much opposed to the previous bill that takes away the requirement for employers to obtain work permits and we still feel very strongly about that but we're very grateful and to center Penzo for trying to work on increases to these civil penalties and creating criminal penalties we're not experts in criminal law but we just wanted to state for the record that we are in favor of this bill we do have a couple of changes that we had also suggested to senator Penzo as well even though we're in favor of it and it would be removing the line about parents guardians and custodians in the criminal penalty section and we know there may be times when parents should be prosecuted in a case like this and we hope that the state would do that when it was necessary but they're already covered in the area where it says person and so singling them out as the the only type of people who are mentioned as we think would highlight them for prosecutors and law enforcement to maybe put extra attention on them when you know their labor recruiters and supervisors and other folks who also would count as person who weren't named so it would it in that way it would take the focus off of those who should be most responsible by removing that reference to parents and custodian's you're not taking away the power of prosecutors but but you we do worry that would create a chilling effect where a young people who may want to report of violation might have heard that you know parents were prosecuted in that law enforcement really pay more attention to the. Parents and guardians in those cases and maybe nervous about the fact that we have on their family and maybe not want to to report the violation in in that way we would also hope that there might be a whistleblower protection part of it just again to To encourage especially children who are the ones being exploited in these cases especially immigrant children to have the courage to speak up at and make sure that their families were adversely affected again I realize that they could still could be prosecuted because they count as person but it would just be a way of making it clear that there are no more responsible than other folks and usually less than other folks in the process thank you and I'd be happy to answer any questions. For. The question. Again that we are in the bill we appreciate you are good with the bill as it is we we wanted to speak in favor because we think that these violations should be prosecuted but we did talk to center Penzo about some possible changes that could just make it more amenable to us. You're referencing line twelve on page two I actually don't have the bill and for me I apologize I came over at the last second Yes. Person covers those folks. And that in nineteen as well things listed twice. Any other questions from committee. Thank you Mr chairman it it's up to you Senator Penzo but. I'll I'll committee to try to get it to where you can have a committee member at that meeting on Wednesday so you won't have to wait until after spring break and I'll co sponsored a bill unless you think that would hurt the bill well I guess I've got it possibly could have. I'm getting so um. It in all honesty I mean if if person a person covers guardian. Parent. Why would a person not cover the member of the a corporation. The I mean that I guess I guess we could just say of a person and leave it vague who violates subchapter. you see what I'm saying I have a I have an answer though there is because it depends on who the employer is any. Or it could be a parent or guardian but they're not an employer but but what you're talking about but if you're talking about the take parents and guardians of the question for just a second okay you're really just talking about employers and a person can be an employer if I hire delete a little mama on yeah Clarke Tucker is the employer. And so that's what it's covering their but if the employer is. Jondo LLC or jondo incorporated is. Then I don't see where any individual within that LLC or the corporation could be held criminally liable for violating this this subchapter with the way that it's written. Okay well. You know five. You know we can we can keep making amendments to it and uh five had probably fifteen groups asked me to make amendments to this bill and I can always follow new bill distant past day so I think I'd like to go and get a vote on it I've got amended anyway I'll just follow the bill tomorrow so I think Senator Clark got a question Senate printer. Senator Penzo I'm gonna vote for your bill but I think Senator Tucker is right that an individual which that you can hold responsible that can be prosecuted I think is is needed in this bill but like I said. Of I'm gonna go for it if you I think you'd be better off to fix it now but you can you can fix to try to fix it as you move on if you if you want because you need to have teeth that it's a good it's a good idea yeah. Okay all right I'll all go ahead and pull down probably run it next week I don't to I'll be tied up to other committees Wednesday so maybe maybe I get Tucker running for me because his dental problems so your next week but well that's true that's true so maybe we'll we'll talk about that and. Yes. Let's try to get the amendment for Wednesday I mean what we're gonna be no one's there I Mr correct let's try to get the men ready for ones that I'll I'm or anybody I'll be happy to get out of committee for you okay all right then I'll pull that one up okay thank you for. Necked. You have another bill. Two more if Committee will does make. The four numbers fourteen fourteen thirty one House Bill fourteen thirty one. You're recognized to present house with fourteen thirty one. Okay House Bill fourteen thirty one allows the trustee of an irrevocable trust to amend the basic terms of the trust without the necessity of obtaining court approval. Current law requires court approval the benefit of passing this law will save or or can Arkansas trust beneficiaries the expense of going to court to amend and revoke will trust will also allow for the updating of out dated trusts without clogging courts with amicable petitions currently thirty six states allow Currently thirty six states have trust accounting statutes we would be the thirty seven. Reasons to the cancer trust of might be to correct errors you may need to fix errors that an order that are an older trusts while some trusts allow protectors and trustees to correct errors others don't to canting interest can help you fix these errors moved to stay with fair favorable laws perhaps Trust was drafted in a state that has stringent trust laws the canting interest can allow you to move it to a state with favorable trust laws. The provisions when the law that govern the trustor changed or amended it can impact the terms of the trust therefore the canting the trust can give the trust the flexibility to amend provisions so that the trust can fulfill its original purpose. Updater changed trustees for the trust or has a change of heart about the trustees chosen or the current trust provisions don't allow for successor trustees the Clinton address can include these provisions so the seller can make appropriate changes or maybe more merging multiple trusts if you establish several different trust with various law firms you might find it best to merge them into one the canting interest can help you combine. Formally for trusts and one. Our committee you have heard the Bill. Explained is there any questions. This is all all new language. Basically right yes. Any questions from committee. Anyone in the audience wish to speak for against the bill. Saying none of Senator Penzo you clothes closed. Our. We have a motion to rise to pass. I have a second center Gilmore education. All those in favor say aye. All opposed. Resolutions so. Next next thank you committee house bill thirteen ninety four person the bill is to allow the creation of domestic asset protection trusts this type of trust allows an individual to set up a trust in which the trust creator is a beneficiary of the trust and the Trust provides creditor protection against claims from the trust creators credit. In order for assets in domestic asset protection trust be protected from creditors the trust cannot be set up for the purpose of hindering or defrauding creditors. And the third party trustee must control distribution of trust assets to the trust creator. twenty twenty states allow domestic asset protection trusts we with the twenty first If there's any questions on this one I can bring interest attorney with me next round if if need be. The. Any questions from committee. Anyone the audience we speak for against the bill. Per if she's seeing scenery by the audience that was split like to speak for against the bill. Are we have a motion Gilmore is second Senator Ricky. Scotians. All those in favor say aye. Follows. Resolution so thank you Committee. Okay no one else Senate core cable bill. The. We would have if Senator Rice and live we have to have six to suspend the rules. Six. Six six no we've got six. Long day. All right all those of favour suspending the rules to hear Senate is it House Bill Senate bill three eighty nine Senate bill three nine nine. All in favor. All opposed. All right you're recognized Senator Clark. Zero three nine. Senate bill three ninety nine a system of simple little bill it says that I would have the same rights in a courthouse to Senator Tucker with the. The it just says that you can have a cell phone in the courthouse when I try to be very careful of ritual in which in here said you can take from a court room I wanted that out that because that falls under broadcasting and I want judges to be able to control the courtroom however they see fit but often we go to court even for a traffic ticket some of us have to go to court with other people. For all kinds of reasons and you're there for three or four hours of an attorneys can come out the whole way and take care whatever business they need to take care of but if you've had your cell phone taken away from your head to leave it in your vehicle you can't contact or stop at work you can't take care of business if you're a senator you can't contact your constituents but. just in general. And again we tried to leave it for the a judge could controls court rooms but in general you could have your phone courthouse I'll be happy to take any questions are you for next like to the billing questions the Bill stint Tucker. Thank you Mr I understand your point Senator Clark I just have a very basic concern about separation of powers. And I just don't see how this violates the separation of powers because the judiciary the judicial branch should being in control of the the procedures in the judicial branch and so. I think I think it does violate separation power of by year have a response well with you on the poor because only forty in slip you said you didn't see it first you said you didn't see how it violated separation of powers but I never the scope to the to the building. Of and the. There's a. The court room itself what this includes the court room it allows the judge to control what happens in the courtroom. and the but it is the building itself. That is of interest. Have you started and you heard from the judicial council about this haven't heard anything okay. Thank you have you. So I haven't I'm not. Any other questions from committee. Is there anyone notice would like to speak for against the bill. Seeing none. I was will of committee. I make a motion to pass. I have a motion to pass Senator Clark. At the second sent to Gilmore instruction. All those in favor say aye All opposed. Gradually Senator Clark bill passes thank you. Thank you Mr thank you members of the committee. Any other members with any of the members with bills. Saying no. We're Jr.