Judiciary Committee - Senate

Not some. Ages we have here for Senator Tucker Graham Thompson. You're here would you stand up. And Asher Thompson talked for Senator Tucker yes Sir thank you guys for being here I could let you introduce those Clark CL that's okay I yes so they're seventy ninth grade brothers they're good friends with my with my son else I'm very excited to have him here today Grammas into basketball and baseball the one on the right and Asher is into basketball and talking. You today talking yes yes he's got opinions see related to her right. You. Thank you all for being here they are thank you for being here also we have a Gordon givens and how safe now my messes up they feel upon from for representive love Senator love. Thank you for being here that. Lane. Eighty. You use that right. I thank you all for being here. All right first the first item on the agenda Senate call we're we're going to go and get yourself away. Senate bill three three seven. Seven three seven three. Three seven three. I want to say three three seven. If the. Well you're recognized to explain thank you very much the gentleman at the animal would state your name and who you're with for the record we appreciate yes I've been farm a staff attorney administrative office the courts are. Senate colder recognized thank you the committee this bill. creates a of an additional district in the district court's Arkansas County this is been approved by the cramp which is the District Court. Resource assessment board and there's really only to. Our committee virginity pledge the bill any questions. Senator flowers you're recognized I want to thank. Senator call will bring in this bill that's thank long overdue. The I'm in much support of it. I think it's justified by the numbers that we see in Arkansas county. So I'm glad to see it thank you thanks send flowers to any other questions from committee. Is there anyone here which you to speak for against the bill. No one here speak for dancing. Saying no one's here speak for against. Senator call well you're recognized close close will be allowed to ask for our votes we we have a motion do pass we have a second house Tucker any discussion. All of the favor say aye All opposed. Graduate center call we'll pass. All right we're gonna go to the yes. I don't think so Senate bill three twelve by Senator Clark. We have an amendment with that one. Mr chairman of with your permission I S. of child support to come help present the amendment. Our okay if you come up and state your name make sure your microphone. State your name for the record you're recognized again. Barbara Williams DFA I'm the administrator for the office of child support enforcement. Thank you recognize Senator Clark. Yes this is an amendment that we made for them of and that they had written it doesn't affect what we wanted to do with the bill so I'm alone or tell you what it does. The Amendment that we requested as a follow on to the previous amendment from the C. F. **** which was clarifying in the DCFS Amendment was providing and that in paternity or a dependency neglect cases any issues a paternity would create determined within that defendants and you collect case of our amendment is that simply following the closure of that dependency neglect case if there were child support issues either to enforce establish or modify our agency or any entity with standing or would be entitled to seek To to proceed with that child support issue in a separate pleading in most of the area around the state that is not current practice in that we will I proceed with the child support in that case outside of a dependency neglect and this will simply and streamline the process and kind of avoid re opening a dependency neglect case. Okay might make sure you're my Act is pulled up as close as you can sum are having trouble hearing so. All right you heard an explanation of the amendment are there any questions. On the amendment. Sam Nunn we have a motion. Where motion dot the amendment. I have a second any discussion. All those in favor say aye are the members been adopted Senator Clark you're recognized for in the plan thank you I would like you to of S. Mr Clint Lancaster come up and help present the bill with your permission Mister are. Your honor if you prefer no I'm not a mixture to find much Lancaster few would state your name for the record good morning Mr be recognized good morning Mr chairman names Clint Lancaster. So you're recognized. Your term as so this is a bill that I I support and I think it's good for Arkansas for a number of reasons it expands the time period for which a person can bring a paternity action and so Arkansas makes a distinction in its low between a child's giant genetic identity and his or her father they're two separate things however there is a lot of of things that can come from a child's genetic identity that are important for a number of reasons those include the public policy of Arkansas Arkansas is a state that does not illegitimate ties a child and so by not it but in keeping with that public policy allowing a person including adult to bring I don't child to bring a paternity action furthers that information and has no financial impact be on the other bill that we have already had discussed it so the the other issue is is that there is often genetic conditions such as health related conditions that are unknown for example my family has a predisposed genetic condition to glaucoma and so being able to know that's not as serious as some others but being able to determine paternity for certain genetic conditions is important the the third reason why I think this is good is for reducing the state planning issues so last time I had I don't do a lot of a state law but when I took the bar you can disinherit a child in the best way to do that is by leaving them one dollar and all your love and affection in a will though however if you don't list that child the law presumes that child is overlooked or the magic legal word is preterm it'd and so then approved amid a child can bring a claim against in the state then and seek to dilute the estate for whoever the testator intended the money or property to go to by having a genetic being able to determine Jean. Identity for an adult child allows the a a person to better plan for their state whether they intend to leave something more for that child in a calendar or whether the intended disinherit that child and so for those reasons I think it's good I will say that I did have somebody call me during the midst of a child support case involving a national public figure in this person swore up and down that Bill Clinton was his father he wanted me to prove that I'd join in there was no way to do that but now if this bill passes that person will have that Avenue to establish his genetic identity. German her next nation the bill. Are there any questions Senator. Can you just just that without last example you gave can you explain how that's not possible now. So there is no there is no mechanism for an adult child to bring a paternity action that just doesn't exist in our statute and this creates that right that now there is so if if it if I brought one what I would fully expected is for Mr Clinton's president Clinton's lawyers to file a rule twelve The motion that Toby six motion saying there's no cause of action that supports this and it would be likely dismissed. My advice that person was wait until president Clinton dies and then bring a claim against his estate is a pre or mid air the current law says actions by the state of Arkansas established attorney may be brought at any time. And this this doesn't really change that it but it. It just says that they can. It limits when a child can bring it until after their eighteenth birthday but it doesn't explicitly stated child can bring the action unless I'm missing that it doesn't explicitly say that the child can bring the action but it also it's ambiguous and so when you have ambiguities like that you run the risk of waiting courts interpret statutes and the what they always say is but the General Assembly is presumed to know our decisions and get amended slaw courting Lee and I think that this is a reflection of stating the will to the General Assembly but this this would leave it ambiguous would not because it doesn't explicitly say that a child can bring bring an action I believe under us The New C. one read yeah I know what I'm reading a proceeding to adjudicate that but protect the parentage of a child may be commenced at any time but shall only be convinced after the child reaches the age of eighteen if the child initiates the proceeding. It is clear yes I agree but it doesn't explicitly state that a child can bring the action that anyway that's just to two of the questions I have one is that with the DNA tested because we the results of that to my knowledge going to be in the range of nine point nine percent and you've got a ninety five percent threshold here and I was just curious how you settle on ninety five. So there is the reason why is that if you had a let's say that you your the thought father's dead for whatever reason and you get uncle or uncles kid cousin you're going to have the genetic match on that I know I'm not a size is just my experience practicing law you'll have a you'll have a genetic hit on that that will not be ninety nine point nine percent but will be conclusive to show that this person was at least related to some degree to the person providing the sample so I. N. S. to a high degree of certainty as well. And on that other statement that senator Clark at in Arkansas a child under the age of eighteen is incompetent to bring a lawsuit without going through its parent or his or her parent or next for in person. So then I just am curious about defining a presumed mother as the woman who gave birth to a child. I understand and there is so there are a number of cases not a whole lot I mean we tend to know that when a child is born that that child comes from the mother but we we were here a couple weeks ago on the safe haven baby box so perhaps biological mother drops this kid off in a safe haven baby box she's now presumed to be a mother even though the child may be adopted to an adopted mother. It's a compass scene it's a little bit of a. He had wrapped around wrap your head around this kind of thing but it's I think it's next unnecessary definition to effectuate the intent of the bill if you're a if you give birth to a child and then you're the legally the person's mother until the that child is adopted by someone else by an order of the court in which case there's. Clearly established that there's always a clearly established mother one way or another is my point I understand that somewhere in America every probably month there's every three months somebody gives birth to a baby behind a dumpster and that's not happening in a hospital is not happening with a burst certificate I've heard of cases where they dump of that a give back birth to a baby behind a dumpster put the baby in the dumpster someone finds the bay because it's crime now I understand all that but still the woman who gave birth to the baby still the mother until there's an adoption or not to presume other or until her maternity as established by DNA so suppose that in this situation child is rescued from the dumpster but comes eighteen it says I really think that Hillary Hillary Clinton's my mother okay now she can bring at a maternity action in in a sense a paternity or maternity action to determine her identity and that presume other is important when I did a DNA test involving a recent high profile child support case we showed up at a lab in Oklahoma City and they took my client the mother's DNA to ensure that this baby she was saying belong to the father was actually her baby and not someone else's. All right this just kind of more of a philosophical question my last question is what we have more. Father check our parent child but more so on the father's side relationships disproven if we pass this. Not not as I see it because once the person I don't see that because if you had an adoption and then the that establishes the adoptive father is though that was the child's biological parents you can't undo that simply by doing a paternity action all you're going to do is identify genetic identity of of the child and the father so I don't think that this would destroy any I have I see no potential for this destroying the title or maternal relationship so much it is as it is identifying other contributors to the child's identity. I have a I don't have teenagers yet. But I know that when they turn about fourteen they want to you know my brother was adopted he wanted to find. He wanted to he wanted to find his presumed mother and we had a tractor down in Memphis and and all that stuff so it happens where they had a brief relationship and she played out again I could see that happening but he felt a lot better knowing whose mother was. I thank you Mr thank you miss Lancaster thank you senator thank you for joining cancer center flowers wrecking. So when you when you put this term here at knowledge father. So are we eliminating. What we consider of punitive father when when the man signs execution acknowledgment of paternity or. Or affidavit good morning senator flowers I don't think so I think that you can both be at a and a knowledge father in a punitive father but you can also be appear to father not ending knowledge father so that any knowledge ment of paternity as you just alluded to does not do anything other than established that you're a punitive father in it and I when I do CSC cases even sometimes as a knowledge fathers don't want to DNA tests they just go from a knowledge father to paternal father. I just feel like you. All these changes to the. The code dealing with paternity issues and even up for his own mother I've never heard of that that if that does that take away from the fact that the code says that the mother has custody. None would mother has custody of the child she gave birth to what what what does it affected this bill have on that. I don't believe this bill would have any effect on that this would only have the effect to wear a mother had placed a child for adoption abandoned the child at a very early age and the child is later using that to. To establish some sort of paternal relationship for identity rather. So under this bill do you expect data action. For maternity is going to be brought. I expect that it could be possible but I don't know that it's contemplated by this bill but having establishing a presume other will help establish a presumed father or a future to father you know knowing one piece of that puzzle if you're a child and dumped in a dumpster knowing one piece of that puzzle might help you track the other piece down. So this is only the applied to get babies that are dumped in a dumpster not babies that are born in a hospital and birth certificate is issued for I thank FOR presume other yes ma'am. The judicial council weighed in on on this bill. We have heard of the they weighed in on three eleven. Of and do they have the and voice no opposition to three twelve. Is anybody here from judicial council. Thank you senator flowers any any other questions from senator Rockchip of sorry about that you're recognized thank you can do it with what you gave on the. President Clinton. Possible the prosecution just talking about our investigation whatever can you give me some comfort that this can't be used unitive Lee from a parent of an eighteen year old that you courage in them to see if they can extract. The money again the test will take care of but they're still fallout from published the. Is there any any that. Secretive. Thing that can be done I mean. Give me some corporate net out sure I don't want to open this up more two. Issues but I also will children. understand be taken care of. Well yes Sir and I I don't think that I do not anticipate that president Clinton is going to be slammed with hundreds of paternity actions however I would what I would say is that people can always use these in a very is manner that you know people see people all the time trying to extract nothing more than that and then of what we call a nuisance settlement you know the amount of money to go away it is possible that someone could do that but I don't I don't think that in my experience it's very unlikely for someone who says I am very positive that is not my kid to pay them to go away their their the they always seem to have an interest in establishing that that is not my child and so I don't think that people. I don't think that would be very profitable simply because it's pretty hard to get service on people sometimes like president Clinton that example I just don't see it as being used I don't see it being weaponized for nuisance settlements okay thank you and again I was pretty comfortable to a that quality of any any other questions from some Tucker. Just one last question this is really kind of piggybacking off what Senator flowers was asking. I just I'm a little concerned about unintended consequences for for naming presumed mothers in prison fathers as to custody and responsibility for children I mean if there were something in here that said. Presume others and presume fathers have custody of babies when they're born unless until proven otherwise it I would be more comfortable with it and you know similarly if we have a presumed mother and and then a child's father needs to collect child support is the fact that it's presumed mother rather than you know actual mother under the law is that going to affect the ability to collect child support from president mother or presumed father so. I just I'm worried about. Lowering the status of a parent as presumed and and not. Collecting all of the possible ramifications sure so I'm this type of geek that loves to read the Arkansas Supreme Court opinions every week and so what I know the Supreme Court does is it will take to the various terms such as presume other and you know and mother and and will reconcile and harmonize them so since you have other statutes another precedent for a United senator flowers mentioned a child born to a mother she's the mother with custody you would have more response and presumed authors have custody until it's established but I think that I don't think that it the language in this statute is not going to supersede the language or case all that we have related to mothers who give birth a child in a hospital in dad's not outside of marriage or something along those lines this could really only be foreseeable use in a situation where the punitive mother very quickly and unofficially disposes somehow of a child in an appropriate manner. Okay. Senator Tucker I appreciate those concerns and of you know if there's one amendment there's already a group gross in here for DCFS and then this amendment for the child support and would be happy you talked about betting on this committee I'd be happy for both of them to come to the committee so that we are fully informed of because both of them are happy with those amendments what are the law for them to clarify okay that's an important question would you. Mister chair with yes that. Senate Griebel yes yes Sir thank you Mr Mister thank you Sir Clark. DCFS child support. Tucker has a question. And. Thank you thank you for the discussion so I'm just curious for your feedback on that but sort of the question is would we be safer to include a line in the bill for this section of code that says the terms presume mother and presumed father as used in this section won't have an effect on custody or child support and any other section of the code or any other place in case law I'm just worried about unintended consequence of defining presumed mother and presumed father and how that might affect custody or for your obligation support financial obligations for your child in another. Setting. I don't believe that this does anything and there's a separate section in code that specifically states that custody of a child born out of wedlock is with the mother I don't recall how that's term if it if the term is birth mother or just mother but I don't believe that that this will change that in any way I have a hard time wrapping my head around what. What the presumed mother is as well but as far as custody I I don't think it will have any impact on on those issues with children born out of wedlock. Okay thank you ma'am. Okay any other questions from committee. Is there anyone in the audience would like to speak for against the bill. Saying none of Senator Clark here. Very close of the business thank you Mr I think this bill is important as a companion to three eleven three eleven of the closing the the. The door that says that you can see all the way back to birth for of. Child support the only laws you to go back three years but this all out make sure that it's clear that a child once become an adult when they could can establish a paternity. Follows and a judicial council who we have had vigorous discussions about SP three eleven and I think they're gonna supported in the House of has had nothing. brought up SP three twelve not at all the same is true with the bar DCFS had a problem we fixed it up child support had a problem we fixed it I think it's a very good bill and I would appreciate a good vote and I move that to a do pass we have a motion to pass. As amended we have a second. Any discussion. All those in favor say aye All opposed. Congradulations the Bill passed center Clark thank you Mr thank you members of the committee all right Senate bill. Two thirty seven the cheers Senator Clark by the way that motion was do pass as amended yes. Two thirty seven is are you ready to present the bill. Sure. I'll be. what about two thirty eight. Sign. Of representative Gazaway you're not here today. Mr this bill that I've had on the agenda for a while and I work more needing to have another conversation about that said the members the code revision commission and myself was senator Brian is here today but we haven't had that conversation so hopefully we'll have before the next meeting and we could just keep it on the agenda we will by the way before I forget we we are going to meet appointed German of the Senate today fifteen minutes after German try to catch up on some of these. So if you happen to have that conversation between. Then and now then you can that those in okay thank you RT of. Representive Lundstrum. Representative matic. Representive don't feel. Senator Hester. Recognized to present Senate bill three four six. Thank you Mr chairman and I'm just gonna start off by handing it off to a miss Harper with the with the DCFS OR to fuel state your name for the record you're recognized see good morning Christian Harper Division of Children and Family Services. And Senate bill three forty six will help to expand permanency options for youth in foster care. Provide additional financial support to relatives and fictive kin serving as foster parents and allow for more streamlined route to permanency in some situations specifically this will be accomplished by expanding access to subsidized guardianship for children who are not for the eligible by waiving the six month placement required requirements that's required for federal subsidies this is cost neutral since these children are already receiving a foster care for payments and guardianship subsidies that are funded by state general revenue allowing non forty eligible adults and in foster care at age eighteen or an extended foster care and to be eligible for state funded adoption subsidies and there's several technical corrections and clean up language throughout the bill and then when read in the bill so long as you see in several places we've replaced the term visitation with family time you may remember a conversation from a few weeks ago and the secured another bill as well and this language is meant to convey better convey what that time between parents children other family members should look like is consistent with trends on the national child welfare friends we happy to answer any questions you may have okay committee heard explanation of the bill any any questions from committee. Senator Clark you're recognized. Yes in layman's language exactly what is the builder. So I mean I'm I'm happy to walk through section by section if you like and that several things so and again on the state funded on the flip side a reading chip subsidies and currently and a you Committee place of course as you know with relatives and fictive kin which we encourage and in order to be eligible for a subsidy for guardianship and the messy placed with the relative or fictive kin for six months as a fully approved foster home but you for youth who are what we call non forty eligible and that's a determination that happens in the interface or here they're never going to be eligible for a federal subsidy anyway and since often we see that there are have been living or spending a significant amount of time with the relative and fictive kin what we're doing here is we would waive that six month placement requirement with the relative and fictive kin as a fully approved foster home and be able to move forward with the guardianship with the subsidy. Yes. Sir Clark I'll I'll put it like as as a former foster parent an example would be a child comes in the care that grandma or uncle or cousin could care for they just don't have the financial ability to and they're not eligible to receive a foster a board payment that like a foster home is so this just removed that because I think all of us would agree that that child is most likely better off with with extended family if the only barrier is a financial situation. Thank you. Senator flowers you're recognized for a question. Well. What would anybody be. A parent. Look to for child support. Under this is this is automatic payments. No ma'am that he's on the board payments and so as you know M. our foster parents and once they're fully approved they receive aboard payments what this is but as it as Senator Hester was mentioning because we want to reduce the amount of trauma that children experience when they're placed in the foster here our first goal is to place them with relative or fictive kin as you know we can do that on an expedited in expedited way by simply we run background checks we do a visual inspection of the home and if appropriate we place we can place the child same day M. until we passed and when we did some rules a few months ago and they did not receive any kind of financial support from the Department while they're on the provisional foster cares ma'am and placement and ex with the exception of of course the child got Medicaid we would do day care vouchers clothing vouchers things along those lines and so what we're able to do you and thanks to the legislature and and sort of the previous administration is is put support please support payments in place for those relatives fictive kin who are still open on provisional basis with this bill would do is allow them to receive a full board payment that support payment they've been getting is two hundred forty dollars which is less than a full board payment and so they would be able to eligible for day one for a four port payments. That that is what that is one section of this bill it does not affect child support anyway in this bill. So so so the state could. So a parent. For that support it's being paid. See yes that that is that is possible yes. That is current and this bill does not change that okay the other question I have is on page two. Hello counseling. Requirements when the birth parent or adult adoptee is registered in a voluntary adoption registry. And. Under current law. They have to participate in not less than one hour of counseling with the social worker. The employed by the. Entity that operates the register now we're striking social worker. And we're substituting an employee or contractor who might that be. So it's it's generally an employee of the Division of Children and Family Services but for our positions with DCFS it is not required to preference but not a requirement to be a social worker however that you typically the people who are running this registry have multiple years of experience with division are able to help that person navigate and talk them through it and and so it's just recognizing and some of and the the top of the challenges we have while still ensuring that person gets the guidance that they need. So what qualifications would employee or contractor be. And so typically that is a family service worker family service worker specialist position that would be in that role and so it's it's a bachelor's degree and that is eight the preferences social worker related fuels and but again the the big key here is that experience and then we have looked at contracting out and when we do contract that out that typically is with a social worker. I'd like to think that the Department wouldn't just put anybody out there know me. Somebody with with several years of working in adoptions absolutely so we'll rules to be promulgated to deal with this employee or contractor use their current rules we can certainly look at it does need to be amended following the passage of this bill I'd be very concerned about who's given this counseling yes ma'am. Burch Senator Clark you're recognized. The Senator Hester to clarify. The. What you just told me for my last question was in a situation like were I have a grandmother. Of hoops there's three children. The help center it's a lot of times it's not one three children she's on social security and we can pay foster parents who may. Who often are wonderful people but they're strangers because we we we know when this bill that is dramatic to take children from all regardless of how bad it needs to be done. Of and we also know that the least problem is when we placed with the relative or fictive kin and they know Graham all in the state with Graham all but Graham also so security she can't afford to. Feeding close three kids and we if we come in foster care we can pay. For all that but we put in with Graham all and let's see if applies and jump through all the hoops to become a foster parent we can't do that and this bill would allow. For us to to to do what we ought to do. And and Page Graham all and to do it fairly quickly yes yes and just do the right thing. When the best bills of the session thank. All right any other questions from committee. Anyone in the army to like to speak for against the bill. Saying aye Senator Hester. Just to make. Sam Nunn center to would you like to close we will. Members I think Senator Clark it hit the nail on the head there I think this is one of the best bills session session a it just makes very basic common sense and I would appreciate a good vote. Our I make a motion to pass we have a motion to pass and a second any discussion. All in favor say aye opposed. Gradually Senator to bill passage of you have one more thank you three four seven. You're recognized according to plan Senate bill three four seven I will start this one by handing it off with a miss Harper with the CFS members are pure recognized thank you Senate bill three forty seven would that will better protect alleged victims of sexual abuse while also reducing child welfare agency involvement in people's lives by limiting the definition of certain to collect allegations specifically in this bill it clarified that for purposes of whether the hotline can accept a sexual abuse allegation a child eleven years or younger who presents with physical evidence of sexual activity is presumed to have not consented clarifying that sexual grooming includes acts that take place over the phone or virtual platforms so that they don't have to be the physical presence of the minor. At allowing DCFS to provide notice to a school when it when a young adults age eighteen years or older is enrolled in that school was a student and is named as an alleged offender in a maltreatment report permitting DCFS under certain certain circumstances to provide notice of the true reports of maltreatment that is pending due process for safety reasons and there's some clean up language we have removed the term parental unfitness from the definition of child maltreatment however parental unfitness will remain of grounds that the court may judicata a juvenile and as a dependent and neglected juvenile. And and we have added a requirement of serious bodily injury to the definition of failure protect to failure to protect and an amended the definition of an adequate supervision in order to accept allegations related to safety while screening out those allegations that only pose a risk of harm and the not affect safety I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have or committee her next match of the bill any questions. Senator Clark you're recognized so can you give me an example of what would. Of. Because a threat to safety but. Not harm sure and it so we we were as an agency we've really been trying to differentiate differentiate issue between safety and risk and and so for example and going to make sure I get to the right page of the bill just a moment please an. So in the bill. And just a moment. And so on page two of the bill and so on one twenty two UTC that was struck out the language a situation that puts the juvenile at risk of harm and so we're really trying to you as a mentions not getting got not get involved in people's lives unnecessarily and ians and use our resources wisely and so now I will admit this is an egregious example but this did happen and we the Holland screening reports and we're on a first grade teacher because she did not tie the child's shoes so the child could have tripped and so that's what we're trying to get out here right here in mean they're it we all we offer run interest in every facet of our lives but we want to make sure that we're not getting involved unnecessarily so that that's what this bill is trying to get at so that would be one example of yes technically speaking that's how could of trips is that potential child maltreatment no Sir we don't think so. All right thank you. Okay any other any other questions from committee. Senator Tucker you're recognized thank you it is grooming definition are we adding it to the criminal code or is it just. This this is to talk about treatment the juvenile code in the child maltreatment that's what I'm saying and want to make sure thank you or any other questions from committee. Saying on a day when the audience would like to speak for against the bill. Seeing none center after you like clothes for you I'm close with a motion to pass March we have a motion to pass. We have a second usury discussion. All those in favor say aye aye All opposed. The Bill pass is gradually Senator Hester. Senator can't hear. Senator Rapert. Senate bill three six six correct. Thank you Mr chair like to have Jeff Ford road and thank you join me here the table was road work as you will identify yourself for the record state your name is Jefferson fire alarm here in Little Rock Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers. March you're recognized to present three six six Senate bill thank you thank you Mr chair thank you Committee Joshua Bryant State centre District thirty two. I'm a first start off by setting you up with with my involvement then why bring this to a to the Committee into the General Assembly June of last year I get a call from one of my constituents it was a it was a Friday mid morning they said that if he needs help understanding what his what his son was re arrested. You know and I and I just thought well that you know they can call the share of call it what we're talking about here and said no the department corrections came knocked on my door this morning and took my son back in the custody he spent the last six months working on is parole and he was released on a Thursday or his in his eighty one year old mother drove down to the corrections picked them up because his parole was granted drives home has dinner seizes family for the first time as a as a free man under parole guidelines. in certain seven years the next morning they taken back into custody which got me to ask the questions you know what what what we doing here as as a statewide why do we do this and the answer is is an attorney general's opinion twenty zero two two dash ten came out that said. Basically the apartment corrections has gotten something wrong for the last seven years. In two thousand fifteen this the General Assembly passed ACT five ninety five the place residential burglary on the violent offenders list that lists with enumerated Clause lists back from ACT eighteen oh five the two thousand one that made second offenses. An eligible for parole. So if you'd can can committed a residential burglary prior to two thousand fifteen even though you are not notice you were treated as a violent offender even though it was not a violent offender list back prior to two thousand fifteen. So what the department corrections is done for the last seven years up until basically until my constituent was affected by it was gave the guidance to. District attorneys to prosecutors two public defenders to defense attorneys to judges. That they were not treating residential burglary prior to two thousand fifteen. As a violent offense therefore will eligibility was possible for anybody that committed a violent offence after two thousand fifteen it lumen repeat you said what date was it not treated as a violent until April first two thousand fifteen. That residential burglar was not considered a violent offense they had aggravated robbery that other other calls on that in two thousand fifteen the General Assembly moved that into violent vendor list. So I you know I I I gotta turn here they can get into the weeds what I'm looking for is is not empathy or sympathy and and no no defendant this real quickly the the list on this. Is in October of two thousand twenty two JPR convenes represent Gazaway convenes APR and we had a you know an hour or two hour meeting about this issue. Secretary graves of dexter Payne and their their counsel in the walls is there gave gave testimony on how we got here. What they what they stated at the time was two hundred and ninety inmates were affected by this decision by it by an attorney general's opinion. At the time of our meeting a hundred and one of the two hundred ninety had already been released they've already been granted parole they'd Committee residential burglary prior to two thousand fifteen the committed a violent felony after two thousand fifteen yes they were they were released eleven of those re offended and we're brought back into the system S. as normal. To those Attur ninety one B. my constituent were released and re and re apprehended. Nope none of those anybody that's contact me whether my letter by phone call have said they're looking for empathy or sympathy for the person or family that that committed acts of of felony against society what they're looking for is for the state to honor their word and I you know I think all of us are indeed in industries where one somebody from a high level tells you something you take it to the bank you could ask all all day like you know my industries is this code twenty to all this code and if you ask another another builder and they say yes you're still kind of leery but when government tells you yes directly that's the code you act on and when someone tells you I got the word from the government that they did this be it in the mail in writing you take it to the bank any fall at so that's the purpose of this bill it's not to re sentence it's not to two were in our own ring the bell of what happened during that time what it is is to reinstate parole eligibility it is not a get out of jail free card. Every offender on this list which is a it's a very long list which the state made promises to which they pulled back on five pages. Offenders. All we're asking for is to reinstate parole eligibility for these for these people so with that I'll turn it over to the turning you can have your no we love it I have the documents which she refers and I'm happy to pass these out to the members of the committee your for a with the permission of the. Okay there. There are three separate ones there that there are two emails from the department of correction explaining the policy and then there's the attorney general's opinion essentially what happened here was was this in twenty fifteen as part of a of a legislative compromise of residential burglary was made was put on the list of of violent offenses there is as soon Senator Bryant stated there is a law that says a second bile if you commit a second violent offense there's no you're not eligible for eligible for parole you have to do it would have to do a hundred percent of your time the. The Arkansas department of correction presumed well talk to their lawyers and presumably talk to the Attorney General announced that they would that they were not going to consider residential burglaries occurring before April first twenty fifteen as subject to that act there's case law that would have permitted them to do otherwise but they made a specific decision not to do so two of those documents are that we have that showed you one is a an email correspondence between the had calculator records person at the department of correction and Greg parish shoes the executive director of the public defender commission stating that in writing this is our policy that was in twenty twenty it was again restated in twenty twenty one everyone knew NO a correspondence with with Jeff Harrelson a prominent lawyer in Texarkana Texas so for seven years people organize their Their own lives prosecutors made plea offers up judges did sentencing pursuant to the stated policy of the department of correction not to consider a proof of pre April twenty fifteen burglaries as residential burglaries as a violent offense and then after seven years they change their mind and after several hundred people had had made had made decisions with regard to that there is a lawsuit pending in federal court is not been adjudicated yeah but the correspondence we have I just have and I'm one of those lawyers on it there about six or seven of us lawyers who were who were filed and it's in federal court in front of judge Marshall those are the those are exhibits in the in the complaint of. Here's a if I could give you an analogy in let's leave aside Criminality let's say that the department of finance and administration the revenue commissioner had said we are going to interpret this particular and NACAC Tax and that meant of the legislature in a certain way that it has a a lesser tax rate ten percent instead of forty percent and for seven years people make decisions they retire they bought houses they started businesses based upon reliance on and if on a statement from the person in charge of collecting taxes and after seven years all of a sudden they change their mind and want to collect back taxes interest penalties and start garnishing and putting liens on everything that's essentially what's what's been done here it's just not fair it's just it's just not right Uh this is a legislative fix it does not give anyone parole it merely makes people eligible for parole if they if they screwed up in some way they're not going to get out they re offend if they're if they disciplinary but this this merrily reinstates the policy that was in effect in the Arkansas department of correction for seven years put in writing repeatedly. I'm happy to answer any questions. Committee your next match any questions from committee senator us sort. Thank you in Senator Rapert you're not talk some. Well listen you you said you're not ask or somebody be empathetic I don't mind I I am if that is something that's good in England that maybe you're saying like I'm hardliner more but I like you with the. The authority that has the authority to make a statement you know you you do kind of take it to the bank Another thing that I have. I thank been consistent on and Judiciary. Is concern of people charged A lot of time do not charge for everything they did. They they actually are offered to a plea for less. in. This comes up we were talking about parole in those things sometimes everything they did not owner because they were charged with in this case. regardless I thank. It's just something that unless they're repeat offender would you have said how many went back to me got my back up after now eleven out of the one hundred one previously release is not going to lessen their record correct. No it does it does not remove a felony conviction the convictions and and it nor does it change the sentence it merely deals with the parole eligibility on the sentence that has been previously assessed and again what I think what I heard you state is this doesn't give them automatic. A parole it makes an eligible yes is that correct and they have a ticket to appear in front of the parole board for the parole board to say yea or nay and again we don't know the individual cases on these Where the. There are history some have longer history and others I I I like giving people opportunities I don't like it when they squander them over and over again. The one that does make me a pathetic in this are the families. That that are trying to hail and trying to help somebody get straightened out in. Hopefully they can do that if if this goes through and I'm going to get pro I'm for rehabilitation it's not going to work we know whatever case but I do appreciate you bring the bill on I don't remember five as it J. P. R. I was J. P. R. I might watch the live stream but if a what now but I remember the day honors many good things brought up a match thank you for bringing the bill thank you Mr. Senator Clark you're recognized. Thank you Mr there's seems like to me there's two different issues here. Of. The one is the state keep minutes were and the second is whether or residential burglary should be abolished but when they're not and. I'm not sure that I agree with changing the second very much clearer owned the state keeping its war so I'm not sure that this is the best way to go about it or the only way to go about it all as a question first I want to ask you this. If in April two thousand fifteen. I had flooring that I was selling. That had a five year warranty and I said from this point forward it's only going to have a one year warranty. And then I found out seven years later that my salesman we're telling people that everything that we had in stock before April two thousand fifteen. Was going to continue to have a five year warranty and we have a lot in stock and we continue to sell it for several years. What we had before April two thousand fifteen and I find out later that they did that and I said no that's not what we were doing that's not what I. What with the fact we were doing is all of it has a one year warranty. Can I go back. Once these customers have been told that can you think a judge is going allow me to go back and say that floor that we sold with a five year warranty only has a one year warranty. Right of course there are all sorts of consumer protection laws and I'm not really an expert on them but my understanding is a judge if if your customers were told it was a five year warranty a five year warranty is going to be enforced so that we have no consumer protection. When it comes to what the state tells people it's it's the the court action is in the Expos facto clauses of the U. S. in Arkansas constitutions and the due process clauses of the U. S. in Arkansas constitutions basically and of course ex post facto has certain specific criteria due process is a more flexible Flexible. Condition recur flexible on the situation and the lawsuit because specific but we have pending specifically points out that this is a violation of ex post facto and due process if a way that is if the what if the General Assembly had done what the. What the department of correction did in twenty twenty two that would clearly be a violation of the Expos facto prohibitions the they are significant case law that a change in interpretation that works to the detriment of people who relied on even if not technically exposed facto but has the equivalent characteristics is a violation of the two of due process guarantees the Arkansas Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court have have said this. So. Is. Doing the second taking this back. Two nine would not be abolished felony the only way we can fix the first the state not keeping as work are the well what we're talking about for those people to whom and whose burglary occurred before April first twenty fifteen now the legislature has the power to lessen a consequence part of the problem one residential burglary what you're talking about is when people hear residential burglary they thank you know home invasions at two in the morning that's not necessarily true our residential burglary statute is so broad that someone wandering into an open garage and taking something. Could can be convicted of residential burglary AT and that's those are those are legislative judgments now what happened was I remember when this big which made made a violent. made the violation twenty fifteen this was under an agreement that have been made by the prosecutors to get there agreement on some some other reforms that we're going to last and drug exposures that type lesson a drug penalty exposure so that's what happened it was a and that's that's a policy decision that the Legislature may and you know if we're was a good policy or bad policy is not the issue the problem is is that for seven years the state of Arkansas said this is how we are going to interpret this law and everyone judges prosecutors defendants everyone relied on this policy in this one just a rumor they they sent they confirmed in twenty twenty to great parents directed public defender commission they did confirm that begin in twenty twenty one they admit that in twenty twenty to their change in the policy and. I understand that that's what I'm asking and and Senator brought to you also I mean I've been burglarized four times. And so I'm not interested in but I can tell you it's dramatic you know the of yes. We're not about home invasion we're not talking about as being there but never the less I'm not I'm not. In any way wanting to let anybody guilty of that crime all however the separate issue that the state told one thing and then didn't do it that I'm extremely sympathetic on and so is there not another way to accomplish this the card this this bill does not remove residential burglary from the violent offender list okay this just creates that that seven year window in which the state thank you for clearing that up okay thank you. Thank you. So just sort of a couple of questions I guess we would you agree that these the for the folks we're talking about here are by definition habitual offenders. Are there yes yes you had to had two felony convictions of of some sort of a violent felony what it's been described as a as a violent felony conviction so for instance where a person let's say who committed a residential burglary at age eighteen got probation for it may be and then gets into a bar fist fighting and so put the battery charge in you know in twenty nineteen. What are under the previous interpretation would not been covered under this act all of a sudden he's under this act this doesn't erase any conviction. This doesn't this doesn't mandate someone's release it merely reinstates the the fought through stated policy recorded in writing over and over again by the department of corrections that we're not going to do this and then after seven years after hundreds of people organized their lives around change or my. Thanks for the explanation there is. Continuing the sort of the one question I think Senator Clark was going down so Risberg is certainly a could be a violent offense hence why it's on the list that is right it's if you're breaking in someone's home that could be a very dramatic experience in absolutely if you're home yes especially if they have a gun specially if it is two AM in the morning and your crawl through a window or whatever the case may be right Fassel So what recourse then for victims that have been through that as you said it may be maybe this is a still in a lot more from the carport but which ones on the list that did you have of those people do you know. What type of residence residential burglar they committed was doing a lot more a carport was it breaking into someone's home with the with a handgun while they're present. Well there are I have not going through each individual one there are some of both all right but I I I can't I don't know I can't tell you right now how many or in each particular category and that's not necessarily easily obtainable information what what we do know is these persons at some point before April one twenty fifteen had been convicted of residential burglary. you know in the in the previous decades. So when when all these I'm assuming some of this may have been some of these may have been pled down to read as burglary or I'm just I'm just guessing I don't know where you know within well within the universe of of those types of incursions burglary is the highest of those of those three the you know letter breaking or entering and criminal trespass are both lesser offenses on that now exactly why they are. Why each one exists in that fashion or each conviction exists that passion those are going to be very case specific depending on how is the strength of the evidence how the how what that added to the the prosecutor to the particular defendant that that type of thing so I guess there's a lot of factors that that could be associated with all this correct correct so. When making a plea. they have to acknowledge that there knowingly involuntarily making a plea wanted the record here you have to admit that there's some factual basis for it and you have to have been found competent to stand or yes I mean that correct so are there not mechanisms obviously you're an expert I'm not are there are there not mechanisms to at some point go back and challenge that if you were. You know maybe not making a plea that you fully understood. Our yes and no there are there are mechanisms you can you can file a petition under rule thirty seven of the Arkansas rules of criminal procedure alleging that you received it essentially ineffective counsel that's that has a very strictly enforced ninety day limit if you don't do it within ninety days you're out the there is a there is the common law writ of error coram nobis which deals with essentially coerced to guilty pleas and not just we're going to give you more time or we're gonna charge you with this but more we're going to raise your grandmother and you know throw or in jail until you please type of. Type of thing and the and that has had that has all sorts of she was a procedural problems as well so there it's it's very it's it's very difficult there are these least theoretical mechanisms. So I I guess the. Final question or thought I have maybe answer the question for for either one of you gentleman I'm just sort of thinking through this so we've established obvious other eventual vendors we've established that there's a propensity for violent behavior socially with rose bird. So what recourse then do victims have if we pass this well the the victim the victim of the offense can of course protest parole when a person comes up for parole the person is registered on vine then he or she can send the letter appear in the protesters meeting whatever and say you know he had served enough time or he's not remorseful or you know whatever objection he or she might wanna make this merely this merely brings this brings the state of affairs in accordance to what the department of corrections stated policy was during that period of time. Okay. Can I have one more for school thank you sorry to keep the layman's point. The Senator Tucker get this question a minute So when when these when these orders were filled out obviously there. I guess my concern is. There may been notes made on these orders and so some inmates may have been treated differently than others based on how the order was filled out does that does that make any sense at all not tracking that correctly no all they do well when they get they get paperwork the sentencing order will say or and used to be called judgment commitment now is called sentencing order but the document will have what this person was convicted of of what the sentence was when when this is supposed to have occurred now there is a provision where the prosecutor has a description of the circumstances some of them are short essay some of or just you know he he broke into axes garage on July fourth or whatever there's there's no there's no great. Requirement the president does not have the prosecution tire file. Okay. Thank you. Senator Keef questions. Thank you Mr chairman. US senator Bryant I just wanna make sure I understand correctly you help me understand so before twenty fifteen if you committed one of these offenses and it was judicata before twenty fifteen you operated on a certain set of understandings and commitments from the state of Arkansas you may have made plea deals you may have as you as somebody stated you you ordered your life around the that said a commitment from the state of Arkansas. you begin serving your time as you said you you know you made future plans for your family based on those commitments from the state of Arkansas you may have even gone through the proprioceptive gone before the board had parole granted under that set of understandings may have even been released on parole and at some point in time the state of Arkansas said we're gonna change how we do things and so even if you're you said your constituent was released on parole and then was re arrested and returned to. confinement. So this law simply says we're going to treat the individuals that offended and serve their time and operated under those understandings before a certain date the way we said we're going to treat them is that is that correct that is correct thank you. Art centre Tucker. I'll be brief because I think we've covered a lot of this but but I just want to kind of established and made clear in my own mind not only does this bill not say whether residential burglaries and violent offense or not it makes no comment on whether it should be a violence answer not correct that's correct and then also I and I understand there's a lot of factors that play in in each individual crime and senator Gilmore was going through a variety of factors whether was a garage or whether people are home in the middle of the night and that sort of thing. This bill makes no comment on any of those factors either and those are the types of factors that the parole board will take into account when they're presented with an opportunity for L. eligibility correct that is correct okay thank you. March center court you're recognized. Thank you Mr. There. Are no doubt people on this list. That. Did plead guilty who up to this charge. Who would not have considering the difference in consequences do you agree. I would I would agree thank. Okay any other questions from committee members. Are we have someone here only to speak against the bill Mr barbecuing. My comment sir but there's. You're recognized yourself for the record Mr McMahon Bob Moran prosecutor coordinator representing the Arkansas prosecutors Association thank you Mr chairman of just in in general the prosecuting attorneys are are opposed to this bill for for a couple reasons I mean let me begin by saying aye aye we're very sympathetic to certain situations and I don't have anything to refute the description of center Brian how he you know presented the bill that's exactly how I understand what he's trying to take care of or anything to Mr Rosso said with regard to to the facts of those cases again I'm not specifically aware of the the people on that list or specifics of each and every case the the biggest concern the prosecuting attorneys have with this bill is that it's kind of a blanket solution obviously there are individuals that relied on information in fact in some of those cases the prosecuting attorney may have relied on on that bad information however there are a lot of other cases where individuals went to trial ever jury trials resulting in in a sentence in there also people that that did take complete knowing exactly what they were looking at so this blanket statement no to cover body on the list is going to pick up individuals that that knew what they were entering into new the agreement that they were entering into because they were aware of the law and and we're not told that the information of the misinformation as it was described so those are general concerns again for those individuals that have a situation of where they were relying on some information was incorrect I mean we feel there's an opportunity there to go to the to the governor's office to get that taken care of in fact at a meeting last week with with center Bryant they were prosecuted said in certain situations like that they would actually support that and write a letter on behalf of the inmate that relied on the information so again those are general concerns this is a blanket statement to correct situation and we think you're going to pick up some individuals that that relied on the information that was accurate or you know we're convicted and a jury trial so this is going to make individuals eligible eligible for this release are eligible for. The the opportunity to go before the parole board that they shouldn't be shouldn't have the benefit of this this fix so I hope that helps at least clarify where we're coming from on the issue. Senator Keef questions. So would the prosecuting attorney then have the opportunity to go before the parole board and argue that case. Well it prosecution you have an opportunity to to usually it's done in the form of a letter I mean it's possible that prosecutor could appear before the parole board but again I'm not sure how many actually do that but they do have the opportunity to usually submit letters to the parole board with concerns so so yes that would be after. Are any of the members of questions. Thank you for your testimony thank you Mister Committee speaking for the bill of. Max I feel. I'd feel if you would to recognize yourself for the record. Yes my name is Max Hatfield I'm a special education teacher unfortunately my step son as part of this process he was arrested and he entered the apartment education for a department corrections in March of twenty sixteen and up until last year we were assuming that he would be out is to eat AP date which is on the Arkansas department website you can pull at the time my wife did it day he was to be released in July of twenty twenty three of this year. It has changed since all this has come light and be Attorney General rendered her opinion he will now be released in June of twenty forty two. That's not what he was told my stepson who we love his ABC numbers one four zero one four six we know he broke the laws we need to be off the street and punished for his actions unfortunately drugs were usually the driving force behind his decisions we do not deny or wish to resolve this actions. The crime is to do the punishment that he was given. We've always tried to steal our son to do the right thing he chose not to any understand fully is actions have consequences. Our system is good to his word. We thought so at the time he was given what his sentence would be and how long he would have to wait till he was eligible for parole. Our system was given a choice he could go to trial with extra charges risk a longer sentence or take a bill which include the possibility of parole the campus actually clean and work on doing better. It shows a deal based on what our system told him what information he was given from the prosecuting attorney from the public defender and from the court room. I would call the handshake or maybe even a verbal copy of her book contract but he would be eligible for parole. For seven years no one doubted that he kept his actions clean he would be eligible for parole. It was until twenty twenty two I was teaching summer school I got a call from my wife wonder what has happened. I look on the Arkansas department corrections inmate search in this state that changed to June twenty forty two I make several calls and started find out what was going on. with your son to respect and obey what he's been taught to do which he struggles with. But on the quote for Mr graves we should not have done that I'm not missing words I'm not making excuses we should not have done that. Two hundred ninety inmates instead of a chance pro will now serve their entire sentence my stepson was to route be released July twenty three three this year. Not be released till June twenty forty two at the same time ninety inmates were under the same umbrella are now free on parole. I'm repeat that they were arrested and charged given the same sentences as my stepson these other inmates that are listed on this list if a are now free on parole. What two hundred ninety we're told sorry Hey for you you're server full time Mr gray stated that most sentences were nine half years longer than what they were at the time. It's difficult for us to tell our steps and respected by the system that we went back on his word is difficult for system itself when it chooses to do wrong I don't believe it's department of corrections did this on purpose I don't think they had a vindictive act I don't think any of that I think they just misinterpret the law and the status changes. My opinion that should been done from twenty twenty to four not go back seven years I have seven years yes they were telling these people if you do this you do that we'll do this we'll do that my son's business long enough I know how those deals work. But this is what I believe that the they did it on purpose but the deal ceases the purpose of the problem is fixed that's what's so great qualities that is the problems fixed but I don't know who this is fixed for the department of state I don't know who that six for the ninety that has been released already is fixed for them but for the two hundred ninety that remain for the extra nine half years they have to service it's not fixed for the families that have to do with this side justified in October the committee meeting we already purchased a car for my stepson forty got out. I'm address legislature body today the body of government close to its people. Please hear this and ensure that all of us even those who did is wrong deserved to be told the truth again ninety inmates on the same bill as my step son remains free on parole. What they were told with a percentage. They got mine did not order to other ninety did not you have the power to make this right. And I hope that you find your heart that you know. But this is not right. When you tell somebody that does what you to do this is how we're going to do it and then go back on you were saying we made a mistake we're sorry you know I hate that for you it's not fair what we're trying to hold people to accountability I don't want nothing released to my step son as far as what he did what he gets he gets if he goes up role they say no hi eighty four you've been that's the way it goes. But he should be eligible for parole like he was told these two hundred ninety should be eligible for parole what they were told no different from the ninety four walking on parole this day under the same style same thanks. They were all under the same thing that's what they're arrested and sentenced to ninety or free into ninety or not. I appreciate your men hope that you find it hard to do the right thing to that February do you believe this state reneged on toward yes Sir a you know I had something that you know and which I found this out is because I've been teaching for a long time. I have a guy that that unfortunately is in the State penetrate you now. He entered on nine twenty seven twenty seventeen. He will be eligible for parole. According to this PT that on December twenty second twenty twenty three. He was found guilty of second degree murder. It's residential burly wrong yes no doubt it's against the law yes my son will be released in June of twenty forty two or someone who's committed second degree murder will serve six years and three months. And these ninety that are walking free their charges were equal to your son yesterday fell under the same array yes yesterday was like four hundred total inmates that fell under this umbrella of what happened of like Mister Bryant as stated hundred eleven or a hundred one were released eleven. Who apparently cannot be right we're sent back to prison but ninety have you know found out they are going to write Simpson has a long history if you look is ratchet you say oh my god. But like I said the beginning my statement most of times it was dealing with drugs and I know where was that with this last time that a student might before the got in trouble if he was smoking meth there's no doubt in my mind. To make it right now. Does he need to serve what he got yes the server every day that they give a. But he was told he would be eligible for parole in all for the time that he had first entered the part of educate our department I seeking state education department correction. We can look on inmate search you would tell us when he was going to be eligible for parole when he would be able to go up and that changed to twenty twenty two after the payment of thirty general any change for all the four hundred inmates. I don't see that anybody could think that that's okay. It's just not right. To to tell people to make them have a decision to be made on what we're offering what we're telling you and I go back and go. You know we made a mistake I just I'm sorry but we made a mistake you're going to have to do twenty five years. I just don't think that's right. Are there any questions from committee members. Anyone anyone and wish to speak for against in the audience. Saying no see Senator. Right would you like to close for the bill. Thank you. Yes thank you Mr chair. Before I approach to approach the General Assembly this I went back in and we watched the JPR hearings. Try to make some understanding to make sure is or other options that we can we can pursue instead of going down what made but may seem to some like Pandora's box. I asked prosecuting attorneys that you know can we be re syncing can we do something and that was just something that that they just couldn't do. When the department of corrections started reviewing this case and they started going through different cases that have been heard from our state Supreme Court Aguilar versus state versus state. The decision kept coming back to the there was to expose facto to those cases about re syncing the Courts continually said the parole board the the prison has sole authority to recalculate paroles. That expose factor because has to be retrospective has to punish somebody for something not an effective time they're convicted it must also disadvantaged offender in those cases I I I cited they're all that's because Pat exposed actors was thrown out. The statement was made. That there is no expense factors unless the re computation was pursuant to legislation passed after the defendant's Richardson's. So to make to make this right for the people that the state told one thing and had to pull back and I like that I don't fault part of corrections they're trying to stay consistent with previous law we have the ability and and the General Assembly to make this right for those are wrong so that I'm close to appreciate a motion. Our committee you heard of Senator Ricky a motion. We have a motion to pass is second any discussion. All those in favor say aye. All opposed. The Bill pass the center Bryant's thank you. Of. Senator Leding. Are you ready and the. I thank your next show like you're the only one left in the room. Back. Well. Senator Leding this bill Is on the inactive list in order to get it off the inactive list we would have to have a vote of the committee. One. Okay we have we have we have a motion to remove the bill from the inactive list. We have a second Senator Tucker all those in favor say aye. All opposed aren't your bill is on the active list you're recognized venture bill. Thank you Mr chairman vice chair members the committee appreciate the grace there Five hang on a second do we get the bill certainly. Is it active list. The Bill. It. Senator Leding you're recognized president. Senate bill four one thank you Mr chair Senator Greg Leding district thirty appreciate again the grace and interest of. Everybody's time I'll be very brief opening remarks I do have miss actually spends the D. and D. N. A. justice project here today as well as director Kermit Channell Assistant Director Senate around with the Arkansas state crime lab Senate bill four oh one let me get each one of them to stay through nine and the the position for the record Ashley Spence I'm with the NHS's project I am for. Current general director state crime lab. City Moran the assistant director with the state crime lab okay center where you're recognized thank you Senate bill four one with Arkansas on the path to join the more than thirty states that already allow law enforcement agencies to use rapid DNA testing a highly scientific process that's as simple as it sounds it returns a result from a D. and as a DNA test and as little as ninety minutes as opposed to days weeks or even months the obvious advantages to this one would allow law enforcement agencies to make to have the information they need to make decisions much more quickly with the defined a suspect or clearing the wrongly accused. Conversations about this legislation began months and months ago the conversations at the state crime lab with with agency staff advocates like misspent and bipartisan group of lawmakers including representative called wing former state senator Keith Ingram and myself and it's really Senator Keith Ingram the got this ball moving is why we're here today unfortunately this legislation took a very personal turn presented income back in September when the daughter of a family friend in Memphis do not remember the cases on September second a mother of two and if this was adopted while she was on her morning run it was Liza Fletcher police found her body a few days later and quickly had a suspect in custody and just about three days after the arrest of the suspect it is police received the results of the DNA and test submitted In regards to if a rape investigation from almost a year before that identified the man that they had in custody for lies as murder as the person who committed the rape nearly a year before now in the Tennessee bureau of investigation's defense they said of the Memphis police had requested an expedited test they could have turned around the test much faster than the nine months it took but it's so within a matter of several days and not just hours so we just feel that this is something that law enforcement agencies should have their disposal in Arkansas and with that I think alternative dispensing let her share her story. Our. Thank you Mr chair members of committee I will never forget that when I heard the words Kevin Lee friend saw you are sincerely one hundred thirty eight years in prison I stood in the back of the court room in my head fell into my hands and I began to cry I cried for the pain I cried for the justice I finally felt after thirteen years and I cried mostly because I knew this man would never be able to harm another person again I was nineteen years old about to begin my sophomore year at Arizona State University in the middle of the night and tutor came into my apartment southern my feelings with the hello turn off my clothes and began to rape beat and nearly killed me I entered the store chair for hours throughout the night and I could not see the face of the man that was committing these horrific crimes against me but I was fortunate I survived but he got away and I never saw his face before he left he said DO not tell anybody I will be watching and if you do I will kill you. I worked day and night with detectives but there were no leads and the fear was paralyzing so I dropped out of school I moved to Newport beach California before relocating back to my home state of Texas it was there in two thousand ten that I got the shocking news it was a DNA match I run a command moved to Newport beach Mr this man but in reality I move to the very city where he left when he was arrested that he was trying to break into a home where three women live just a few blocks from where I lived all those years he tried to resist the officer felony and thankfully they have a long California which election here upon all felony arrests DNA is taken so they took because the NHS Robert operated in the national database CODIS an imagine back to my case all those years before he had a shed behind his home for of women's underwear and ID cards from all over the world we actually to try out for almost five years partly because we're waiting on the Supreme Court ruling and Maryland V. king in two thousand thirteen but found that taking your D. N. H. six rob it was in fact a reasonable part of the booking procedure just like your photographs just like your fingerprints so we went to trial and trial through Benson's and technology an incredible team of my heroes they were able to prove it was thirty eight trillion times more likely this man's DNA on me than anybody else's I had justice but is there of justice there's a study by rain that says out of one hundred raids ninety seven point five percent of rapist go free dismiss change. Per our incredible incredible successes with DNA databases and DNA databases are some of the most successful tools for low investigations and here I am so proud to be an Arkansas and Mr channel and all the work that you all do with the crime up it is absolutely incredible not only do we give justice but we ensure that the right people are serving time for the crimes and we can prevent these crimes from happening is when we begin to maximize and enhance the DNA in the databases we're going to get more hits. There is one in the nation we're facing a crisis and that is called an lawfully DNA so essentially the department of justice's estimating per state forty to fifty thousand I'm uncollected offender DNA samples per state so that means as the law stands for felony arrests or convictions in this state the estimating it's around forty to fifty thousand and that is where I can be because of the many reasons missed court orders ignored court hearings lack of training unclear status but we are missing people but in some cases are violent serial offenders free to harm people today in our communities so what is the solution one great solution is rapid DNA within ninety minutes if you have rapid DNA in your booking station it's just a small device desktop size you can toss DNA for qualifying arrested after. And you can see within ninety minutes if they're connected to any other cold cases around the country this is groundbreaking and this will actually change the future of criminal investigations I am really really excited about it and Louisiana is the first to actually go live we have many other states following suit I'm very proud of Arkansas for being one out here and I'm grateful to be here we know that if we can start testing we can reduce opportunity of people fleeing we can actually eliminate suspects quickly we can help with that lawfully DNA we can shut down the loophole for collecting it booking and we can how to make very informed decisions on bail and bond. So what I'm the fleet Curtis is not what goes into the database that is not your entire DNA so people think twenty three and me the DNA is made up of three billion Marcus those interactive DNA and to call this is the exact same as what goes into cut it so it is just twenty markers that have been spent six specifically by genetic scientists they're non coding it doesn't revenues if I'm predisposed to any genetic disease it doesn't even have my name goes on since nineteen ninety eight and we have never had a breach in the system and rapid we did here to the same regulations is that there was a preliminary study by the Florida International University that shows that rapid creates increase database entries which decreases crimes by up to three hundred percent now this can. Workload at the crime lab and ultimately help reduce the backlog so I am really really excited I am really grateful we know that not only will this take a little bit of course of investment and work but in the end that will save money and we will save lives and we're talking about victims I am not a mother I have a seven year old daughter and an eight year old son I think we can all say that every minute counts we don't need to wait weeks and months and years we can make sure the right person is off the streets and protect our communities so I thank you all so much I am so grateful to be here and I am available for any questions as well. I have a statement. Correct me if I'm wrong is to make my hand I read this morning were Arkansas the number one state in the country when it comes rapes. Number one in the United States. So I appreciate you being here any any questions from members Senator Hester. so you speak so informed on this issue it is this been challenged anywhere like through the court systems like has been used to convict somebody and then challenged and stood up the forces just for the basis of like a starting. You know like reasonable doubt or getting a case started. Senator Hester I'm not aware of any challenges in that regard but one of the things to keep in mind that when the samples are taken it actually gives probable cause so it's an investigative tool on the front end of that DNA profile that is taken out rapidly any booking station is hit again against the thunder and at that point a warrant can be given to actually collect an additional sample from that individual and we can then tested in our laboratory not ex exactly what will testify to prove in court. Is is is this something whether we would have one of the state or one of each of our our crime labs or or or or we had a we put these in police departments across the state well right now the I mean the goal is we actually like Senator Leding the looted to we had a task force last year that was put together to look at the feasibility of rapid DNA if it was good for the state and how we should progress and at the end of that task force it was the recommendation of the committee we should go forward with rapid DNA with a a pilot or test program with two counties here to to actually look and what would look like if we if we implement it I do think it's it's very good technology in the key to the technologies again to get the DNA profile you know in ninety minutes and in in the thing that people don't realize I think is what happens the DNA profile would be obtained in ninety minutes and in the machine actually an instrument in the booking station that wouldn't take any kind of DNA analytical interpretation that DNA profiles and sent to the crime lab in its search against the subset of DNA profiles of of suspect was for sexual assaults or homicides and all that happens pretty automatically and then within twenty four hours that searches around the state and its search around the nation I think that's the power of this technology and really what this bill really does it enables law enforcement at booking stations to be able to have this instrumentation it doesn't require it it just allows them should financing be available from the states through federal funding this paves the way for that to happen and so I think that's the the the the main thing about this bill on on what it has the potential for doing in Arkansas. I will the last question just because you said it paves the way for federal funding what if the state wanted to fund it oh absolutely I mean funding for this number one would be at the state level or when I say federal funding you know we have the opportunity to write federal grants to help implement or support this we could try to do that as well. Are there any other questions from committee SunTrust. Thank you let me let me. Get clear my mind. The rapid test will allow holding of the individual. The. Darting of prosecution but the case itself there is a longer further test is that what I'm hearing. The the way it would work is if someone comes into booking station what the insurance does it checks against for instance a CIC database to number one make sure that we have a qualifying offense if we have a qualifying events will take basically what is like a cheek swab put into the machine at all actually determine what the DNA genetic code is for that individual at that point when it searched if it gets an association to any other criminal case in the state or around the nation that will be reported back to say Hey law enforcement you just arrest of this individual and it matches to another case so at that point before they exit the system let's say war leave the booking station or the that jail you know they could be held because now they have probable cause to collect another sample that we contest in the laboratory with my DNA scientist actually to see if in fact that DNA profile matches that other case it's a comfort confirmation step if you will and that's what the would advance any potential prosecution going forward and and that was my question to go to trial and basically what I'm asking there is a further testing absolutely okay that that's that's what is clarifying and did I miss the cost of the. Mr Quitman you did the the cost of the equipment is in hand in here but through our task force putting this into booking stations that do approximately two thousand arrestee samples per year the funding for that would be approximately one point eight million and that's to operate the system into booking stations for two years okay thank you thank you Mr Senator Teague you're recognized thank you Mr chairman so you don't have any concerns convictions could be or individuals who are on our initially discounted because of the rapid DNA tests that they could that would hamper future prosecutions and anyway. No no I really don't because essentially the you know the DNA profile it's that comes out of the rapid DNA instruments is a quality DNA profile one of the reasons that the crime laboratory is actually involved in it because we would set the internal policy and regulation for that booking station we would make sure they have the adequate training to run the equipment and make sure we're body well federal guidelines. Have questions from committee. Senate anyone in the audience would like to speak for against the bill. You saying none Senator Leding you ready close for you will I appreciate the committee's time. We have a motion to pass we have a second any discussion. All those in favor say aye. All opposed. Gradually Senator away thank you Committee farm we will May fifteenth. We will. Recess to fifteen minutes after the Senator German. Be back here. Our.