Judiciary Committee- House

Here right now. Representative Gonzalez's centers that sentencing impact has been passed out it's my understanding that you have amendments that you're wanting to present so we will get those amendments also passed out I will give the committee just a couple of seconds to take a look. In committee unless we have objections from the Committee we heard this bill for three hours I believe Tuesday I think we've heard. About all that we're going to hear of indicated to the representative that. we would prefer not having any witnesses that he had any extras he wanted to bring I think we have thoroughly vetted this bill. That if there is an objection by the committee then we will certainly take up the witnesses folks who signed up but we've heard it pretty much all right next if you any questions on the sentencing impact. Seeing none were passing out the amendments and when we get those amendments passed out and representative Gonzalez you'll be recognized to present your amendments to Senate bill eighty one. All right members of the amendments are now before you. represent Gazaway you're recognized to present your amendments. Well represented Gazaway did help me with this but I have lost it and once again you and Gazaway look so much alike. It's like there is in the it's it's an honest mistake it's like when it's representive Richmond and representative Richardson they look so much alike that I get them mixed up so forgive I think I need to apologize more to you representative Gonzales then to represent Gazaway. The jazz. It both of your both your names start with the G. on the from the state all right let's try that again representing Gonzales you are recognized to present your amendments thank you madam chair so after this bill went down in flames earlier this week I worked with a couple members of this committee to get get some changes make some clarifications and that's all this amendment does it is not substantive changes to the bill so we change the claimed back to from what from determined back to claimed clarified that that this is not a book banning bill that it and to cut together removal from all language and added free location and clarified that is removal. We located within media center that is not accessible to minors for these books And then also clarified. Who's taken up the the complaints if it goes to go sit here or county level complaints of. Membership for the explanation of the amendments are there any questions on the amendments. This represents because you're recognized for a question can we just have a minute to review this a little bit closer certainly thank you. But shall have a chance to kind of review it as it fits in if you'll start looking up here so Barbara I can see that you've read and ready to go. Thank study time in the library and here's client. One thing about this committee we take our work very seriously. All right I believe I've seen most everyone has completed looking at the amendment anybody needed any more additional time. Okay. I believe her body has had sufficient time of I think everybody his read the amendments now are there any questions regarding the amendment representative Richardson you're recognized for a question thank you resent Gonzales on the Page five line thirty six wars deleting removed from media centers collection and not accessible to minors under the age of eighteen so that means it will be removed. Some of these books that may be in public life I mean in school libraries will be removed from the library all together since you have some students that will be under the age of eighteen correct no that's not not correct a just how can I get not available to the minors they can keep the books in the library say if if teacher faculty or you know someone over eighteen was was there the school wanted access to it they they can still have it there but not accessible to minors. President Collins recognized for a question. Thank you senator so kind of on that same line there. You're saying that it would have to not be accessible to minors under the age of eighteen does that mean that it would have to be an eighteen and up section and I guess how many libraries even have an eighteen and up section. I can't I can't answer that but yes a minute not necessarily a section it's not not saying how they have to handle it just says not not made accessible to minors follow up you're recognized but if there's not a to an obsession that effectively you are gonna have to remove it because everything else in the library would be accessible to the children if there's not a section that is not accessible to children. The letter they could keep him on the desk or something I don't know how they would want to handle that but we have them. And guess what you're recognized for a question. I'm sorry manager I have a question answer a representative Hudson you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair and the A. I. I'm sure representative Collins representative Richardson's consternation about this but is there a procedure under which a a student could check out books that are removed and or relocated to that this restricted area because for example on some of the list of books that that people are wanting to be banned there things like Brave New World and beloved and the color purple which are all considered literary classics how do they access these books if they are removed or relocated. We can create a list of of books to be banned as I think we've established that and and don't plan on doing that and I can't imagine going through the steps of of this that those books would be banned Or or remove from from a section of and they they have. Your. Follows manager. You're recognized for the following you may not be following the question those were uses an example of the types of books that are on lists that that people intend to challenge but if a book is relocated to this restricted section is there a procedure under which a student could access those books. You know you're not eighteen no so if they need to do a book report they can access these books in their library. Again those books haven't been banned and art. And this is get away from the specific books if a book is restricted and the student needs to access it can they access it. No. Any other questions. Say no further questions with the wishes of the committee. Motion to adopt the amendment we have a discussion on the motion. Seeing no discussion all in favor adopting the amendments please say aye. The post say no the ayes have it you're recognized to present your bill as amended thank you madam chair Committee we've we've heard this bill we I think we've been over it we know what it does the amendments don't make any substantive changes to the. What the bill is so I would ask for a motion to pass as amended and close to. You're on the questions. Members represent Gonzalez is close for his bill is wishes to the committee maybe I'm sorry representing more. Question your question thank you madam chair so I just want to reiterate my original question from last week Any book that will be relocated to the sections will be damned by a judicial judge. Not a county judge to be sexually explicit for minors correct so it if they are already deem to be sexually explicit for minors than. Then they already can't be provided but that's. I spoke so I guess I don't understand exactly what you're asking because that if if they if they've all previously been deemed harmful to children then then they can't be provided children anyway. You need to follow up you're recognized for the following. But the part when it comes to. Charging individuals that knowingly grant access to these restricted materials my my my question I guess is. Ultimately who decides what is restricted what is not. What is appropriate and what is not. The. So they go through the appeal process that would be the the city council quorum court or school board if they use that section of the bill if someone decides to to file a lawsuit or whatever against the the library library and then that that get that's a judicial process that will go you know judge prosecutor would would have to press charges and the judge would ultimately decide whether that's obscene material Hartford harmful to children. Senate calling recognized. Thank you madam chair I just want to say that but still the what we talked about was that guy was it yesterday. from the first version are still issues to me like criminal penalties for all people librarians judicial decisions being made by legislative bodies people possibly going place to place to try to to take books out also there's still no exception procedure for students who may need access to materials whether for a project or four with parent permission. Senate questions. That was our discussions. Yes when I got a motion yet now so we're in that question but I guess I have to say would you would you agree. All right members side I think that we have had our discussion I mean not I questions and we have heard this bill as I said for three hours previously do I have a motion. S. as in the we have a motion to do pass as amended on the table may have been we have a discussion on the motion to do pass as amended. The person claiming you're recognized for discussion thank you madam chair I'll keep it brief because I know it's been a lot of time on this already but I'm I'm deeply concerned about legislative bodies like one courts and city councils making decisions to doing that the termination threat president of my was asking about I know ultimately that it's turned over to a court to make decisions but that first at bat definitions peas the book that president of Hudson was asking about what books and up on these with well that may not be intend I believe that the fact is there are quorum court since the councils around the state that may disagree with you And books just like that may allow and likely will miss the rest because I think that that these decisions that criminal penalties need to be done without defined backwards and encourage all the same thanks for members any other discussion. Say no further discussion with a motion to table the motion to pass as amended all in favor say aye. All opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you have passed your bill. Representive fight. There you are members if you'll turn to House Bill fourteen fifty nine. So that the first one representative fight. Members we have an impact statement. Sensing impact statement that's being passed out to you and represent fight if you just give them just a couple moments to see that impact statement then we'll begin thank you madam chair may I bring my guests to be into the table while we're waiting yes. All right members should have the sentencing but impact statement in front of you representative photo recognize you if you identify yourself for the record then you may begin to Percy. Thank you madam chair Charlene Fite state representative district twenty four. Gazaway assistant Attorney General. Sherri steam government affairs liaison family council. One Q. profits for the Attorney General. You could call it. I represent but you're recognized to present your bill thank you madam chair this is part of the package regarding human trafficking from the attorney general's office representative Gazaway will be bringing part of it and I am bringing these two bills to you today what is human trafficking the dictionary definition says the unlawful act of transporting a coercing people in order to benefit from their work or service typically in the form of forced labor or sexual exploitation. Here's what fourteen fifty nine does to help combat human trafficking in the state of Arkansas five things it changes the comparable mental statement into sex trafficking crimes one trafficking of persons and to patronizing a victim of human trafficking from knowing to no I should have known to it increases from two hundred and fifty dollars to one thousand dollars the additional fine imposed on defendants convicted of trafficking of persons solicitation of sex or prostitution who are found to have paid for sexual activity as a part of the crime three it adds the same special fine to additional relevant criminal offenses specifically patronizing a victim of human trafficking grooming a minor for future sex trafficking traveling for the purpose of unlawful sex with a minor and promoting prostitution and the first second and third degree for it splits the fine revenues between the safe harbor Fund for sexually exploited children and the human trafficking victims support fund and finally it adds to the list of appropriate uses uses by the human trafficking victims support fund and I can go into more detail on each of these as you wish but I'm going to ask my friends to make some statements now. Madam chair committee thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today just want to let you know that family council strongly supports this legislation and legislation like this we consider this a human life issue and just to just to make a couple of points human trafficking is the fastest growing and second largest criminal industry in the world and in the US and in the U. S. court court into a two thousand twenty two report by the international labor organization in the U. S. people including children are sold in quantities second only to illegal drugs in two thousand twenty one sixteen thousand five hundred and fifty four likely victims of human trafficking in the U. S. were identified and involved in cases when reports to the national human trafficking hotline what those numbers are shocking. They are only a fraction of the estimated twenty seven point six million people living in modern slavery worldwide According to the human trafficking institute I can Arkansas ranks thirty third in cases in the United states and territories with California being linked last hopefully this legislation can help our ranking by helping these people in traffic of there being traffic and holding people accountable for their role in human trafficking and increase the punishment for participating in it. A couple examples that we talked about as far as should have known change the language from known to should amount is that there there were lots of instances for instance if the hotel owner or home landlord allows a person to purchase the room indefinitely and witnesses evidence of human trafficking such as men coming in and out of the location of women and children being held captive then they could be held responsible for allowing human trafficking because they should have known that that was a possible sign of human trafficking another instance would be if someone were paid money to help traffickers and identify children who may be vulnerable to trafficking this is a huge issue is not just an issue world here but also worldwide so we just ask that you vote yes on this very good legislation we appreciate representative fight for bringing this legislation continuing her of protection of our most vulnerable citizens in Arkansas thank you. And miss a representative five did excellent job explain what the bill did I was just going to go into detail and a few more things so changing the culpable mental state in trafficking of persons and patronizing a victim of human trafficking from will from knowing to should have known will help prevent defendants from feigning ignorance like I didn't know this child was a victim of human trafficking that's a really important change that should help some of these defendants not get away with victimizing children. these additional fines these guys are kind of like fine enhancement so these are additional fines for people who commit these crimes if additional circumstances are proof so a defendant who can who is found guilty of one of these enumerated crimes if it is also found that he or she committed the offense by offering to pay agreeing to pay or paying a fine to engage a paying a fee to engage in sexual activity the signs will be mandatory and the fines range from one thousand dollars on some of the lesser offenses such as some of the small misdemeanors to to honor twenty five hundred dollar fines for a Class B. felonies and then those larger felonies there either class B. or class Y. felonies and those fines are going to rage range between five thousand and at fifteen thousand dollars the two I was just going to explain a little bit about the two different fines so one of the funds is called this state harbor fine and it is currently administered by DHS and it's used to provide services and treatment such as securing residential housing health services and social social services for sexually exploited children this fine is so we used to the benefit of victims of human trafficking trafficking who are minors. The other fund which is administered by the attorney general's office it's called the human trafficking victims support fund and it's currently used to provide grants to nonprofit religious and other third party organizations that provide services and treatment such as securing residential housing health services and social services for all victims of human trafficking M. and the bill also is now going to allow that find the human trafficking victims support fund to also provide money to law enforcement agencies in order to train and educate on human trafficking. But just real quick could you give your first and last name for the record all I'm so sorry it's brick Gazaway thank you. Right members you've heard explanation the bill or any questions on the bill. Seeing the questions we do have someone who signed up to speak against the bill Mr Rosenzweig you're recognized come to the end to table and speak against the bill. Here We're gonna put you right here thank you. You're in a fight yourself for the record then you may make your state represents like Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers there are two drafting errors in the bill one of which may also be drafted into a constitutional of vagueness problems of first of the bill of lists the seven criteria for the seven ways you can or section seven ways you can violated however the bill leaves out the sentence immediately precedes these criteria which is a person commits the offense of trafficking of persons if he or she knowingly so knowingly is already in there and if you add the should know to it you got a mishmash of what does that mean with if you're knowingly should know something what age are you on I'm on I'm on page one where they have of five eighteen of one oh three the this is the actual statute they what the drafters have left out or some whoever have left out the line preceding everything. It's in the bill. the bill off of the the there is already a knowing in the in the actual legislation you are this would amend there is already the culpable mental state of knowing that applies to all these criteria for all these ways you can do it and if you then put it in a should know then you've got confusion the heck because what is it have you knowingly should know something what does that mean that needs to be fixed in some way their ways to fix it but they need to decide what they're what they're wanting to do with that the second problem is the use of the word should know should know is all has been found by a number of courts including in one instance the U. S. Supreme Court to be unconstitutionally vague because it doesn't give a person sufficient guidance of a fix that a number of courts of said is a pixie and which is in Arkansas statutes in other places adding the word reasonably instead of just saying should know reasonably should know which makes it more of an objective standard then then just saying should know which has the constitutional problem so those are the objections that make if they can be fixed but they need to be fixed. Members are there any questions represent guess what you're recognized. Thank you madam chair so with regard to your first point about knowingly. And the language of when he or she knows or should know. Doesn't the knowingly just applied to recruits harbors transports obtains entices solicits that particular conduct and then with respect to the minor the language of when he or she knows or should know the point there being that the person is is a minor or or subject to human trafficking as whatever the case may be according to the statute so the notice should know modifies a different portions and then the mental state knowingly requirement as to the actual actions is that not me that's that's the way I read it all right well. That that's that's a possible way of reading it back there but there are other possible ways at least needs to be clarified and again they should know you know the commander should know needs to have at least the word reasonably should know to get the people they're trying to get the hotel owner and not just a random people out there so I mean is easily fixable just. Have an amendment that says reasonably should should know or reasonably should have no person guess what you're recognized for a follow up. Well I'm not sure I'm followed by your second point is is. More will take and then your first point as far as I'm concerned but I'd like to have in the attorney general's office on it at some point about their opinions. If you like to weigh in at this point. I'm representative Gazaway is correct about knowing in that first part of the sentence of the statute the knowingly definitely modifies the action and not whether or not the victim is a member of. Human trafficking the knows or should know those. To my knowledge Arkansas Supreme Court has never said that should know is constitutionally vague adding the word reasonably should know may be may help with any future constitutional or statutory challenges but whatever the language it however the language is written. It will absolutely be challenged by defense attorney going forward. Represent guess what you're recognized. Thank you madam chair at so I'm just thinking through. other places in the code and I seem to recall that there are other places in the code that have the language no or should know. And and not this reasonably should know that Mr Rosen's whacked sets forth are you guys aware of other sections of the code with that language is included I can't think of any off the top of my head Mister Cooper the body else the Committee thoughts on this Mister Cooper make sure you benefit yourself and then given thank you madam chair Ryan Cooper at thank you representative Gazaway I right off the top of my head domestic battery first and domestic battery second both include that language. That's it you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair and and to kind of pick you back up represented Gazaway questions of Mr Rosenzweig you mentioned that you thought that there are ways to fix this and I don't know if it was limited to the inclusion of work reasonably but I'm curious about what your thoughts are do we know what all issue and see and hear from the eighties on this one the the reasonably should know should fix should I think would fix the problem because it would it would give it would it would give more guidance to someone and and and you to remember this is a criminal statute it's not a and a lot of should knows appearance civil statutes but a criminal statute you know has a different magnitude of liberty interests involved I think reasonably should know would fix that problem however the Arkansas Supreme Court has struck down should know the US Supreme Court in the genteel case which was actually professional conduct case it did say it was improperly bag in the context of that so I I don't see any harm and I see a lot of of clarification if one and search the word reasonable reasonably appears elsewhere in this in the code it deals with it creates an objective standard and so and gets rid of any subjectivity issues and allows and it would probably give every everyone sufficient notice and with regard to the To the to the first concern I had about knowingly should know the problem the problem is that that knowingly Whitaker I think I would apply to every element in this succeeding in the succeeding lines And if you leave it up to a court to decide all right to decide exactly whether it's clear enough or not I don't think it is but. People may disagree on that. Would you like the AG's office to also respond yes please okay. And Ferguson Ladyman the word reasonably. I'm not sure if it's necessary I think know or should know. suffices when it comes to whether or not a child or a person is a victim of human trafficking it may ultimately be up to a court to tell me that I'm wrong but I think it is fine as written. President college you're recognized for a question. Thank you I just want to say aye you know I do agree with representative Gazaway and that first one and I also did did a little search through the criminal code and knows or should know does appear several points in our criminal care without reasonable would you agree. I agree. Members any other questions of this witness. Seeing nothing further thank you Mr Rosenstein we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representative Fite you're recognized close for your bill thank you madam chair we know that nothing help strict human trafficking victims more than law enforcement fighting against it and freeing them and this bill will certainly help to do that at one time Arkansas was one of the leaders and I laws against human trafficking we have not fallen behind a lot of other states I want us to stop this horrible evil against people in our state and I believe this bill will certainly help to do that so I appreciate a good vote members represent the fight is closed for a bill with the wishes of the committee we have a motion to do pass. We have a motion to do pass on the table is there any discussion on the motion saying no discussion all in favor please say aye I'm. Gotta be quick. It is opposed saying no opposition the bill has passed congratulations thank you madam chair and thank you Committee my other bill would be much easier if you're ready for that wire center into the table let's let us take you so we don't have to play musical chairs and I'm gonna ask my guests to please remain with me membership you'll trying to House Bill fourteen seventy House Bill fourteen seventy and representive five you're recognized thank you madam chair House Bill fourteen seventy has just a few parts to it the Arkansas crime victims reparations Board is the board that provides financial compensation to victims who have separate personal injury or death as a result of violent crime the current law states that if the victim has not fully cooperated with law enforcement officers and a criminal case then the Arkansas crime victims reparations Board may deny withdraw or reduce an award reparations to that victim this bill simply provides an exception to that general rule for children who are victims of a sex offense as well as an exception for people of any age who fall victim to human trafficking if either of these two types of victims are too scared for our coerced into silence or for any other reason don't feel comfortable answering questions or otherwise complying with investigations this bill will allow them to do so without keeping them from reparations to which they might otherwise be entitled this exception helps but it protect those two types of victims from being subject to re victimization. Members any questions. See no questions. We have no one to sign it who signed up to speak for against the bill representative fight you're recognized close for your bill I am close for the bill and I appreciate a good vote membership C. Fite is close for a bill with the wishes of the committee I have a motion to do pass any discussion on the motion seeing no discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you have passed your bill thank you madam chair thank you committee members. Per se Vaught you're recognized to come forward and present house bill fourteen thirty four members if you'll turn to House Bill fourteen thirty four. Thank you madam chair. Identify yourself in your you're ready to go damn five district eighty seven add this bill is just to do some clarification what fact pleading state causes just clarifies that they have to have backs before they can bring an action against the farmers in our state. And I'm finished. Wait members any questions. Seeing no questions. We have no one signed up to speak for against the bill representive out of your clothes for your bill because my Preciado good good that members represent bodies because we bill we have a motion to do pass on the table is there any discussion of the motion. Seeing no discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations thank you madam chair thank you Committee. Represent guess what you're recognized to present House Bill fourteen forty eight. Yes. Members this is house bill fourteen forty eight. You madam chair and I have a witness here judge hurts ability could join me at the table yes judgments hurts failed you're recognized come to the table. You're recognized. Thank you madam chair colleagues this bill does. Really five simple things in helping to modernize and to make a probate system better. one is that it raises the dollar amount to require guardianship when settling a personal injury case involving minors from five thousand to twenty five thousand. to establish is better procedures to sell real property in the State case particularly giving flexibility on the sales price I have a personal encounter both of those the first instance instances and in practice and I can tell you that these will be good changes it'll be helpful to many people as they navigate the probate process third it makes it more affordable to carry on adoptions by waving the home study requirement when the adoptive parent is related within three degrees of consanguinity or has been a guardian for more than one year and I think the point there is generally and judge her spelled can obviously give more detail here in just a moment but the point is is that someone who's a relative has had a guardianship over one of them minor children or or otherwise disabled or dependant relatives they were not children but relatives and they've had a guardianship for more than one year then make him go through the extensive process of home studies and pay. Thousands of dollars in fees in order to do that really doesn't make a lot of sense and so once again I think that's another common sense and measuring good changed or probate law for gives the court authority to order a person to pay attorney's fees in guardianship cases when they are in contempt of court or have filed a guardianship in bad faith. once again Those who would seek to abuse the process I can be held accountable and in five but removes the mandatory requirement for bonds and decedent's estate cases. While creating fair procedures to set bond when they may be appropriate I personally seen this it's it's actually oftentimes ignored which is not a good practice so it would be actually good to give the give the courts or remove the the mandatory requirement because it's in a lot of cases in my experience being ignored anyway but nevertheless that's all the bill does I think that it it would be a big helped or probate system and modernizing it making it easier for those who have to go to the pro probate process to navigate but again judge or spelled can explain in more detail. You're recognized to fuel state your name for the record and you may add your comments. Thank you madam chair my name is Robert Hurst build on the circuit judge from selling County I'm the chair of the domestic relations probate Committee for the judicial council think representative graduated excellent job I'm happy to answer any questions. Members do we have any questions. Seeing the questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill represent guess what you're recognized to close for your bill thank you madam chair I'm close for the bill make a motion to pass membership say guess what is close for his bill is made a motion to do pass is there a discussion on the motion saying no discussion all in favor say aye. All opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you passed your bill the manager of the thank. Represent medics reach their your members if you'll turn to. House Bill fourteen twenty four representative Matt you're welcome to come to the in the table. Thank you madam chair have a guest join me at the table yes. The Committee on because of us during the circuit Clerk for Washington County and also the president of the Arkansas Sir Clark cessation. Guess what you're recognized to present your bill. I'm so go ahead. In a long morning whoever you are down there at the end of the table. You're recognized I don't. I gotta move representative Gazaway is name tags right there in my line of sight before everything gets blurry down there I apologize once again y'all look alike we've got triplets in the room represent Medicare recognized thank you and thank you manager thank you committee to refresh your memory we've actually done this one time it didn't go that well so we're gonna try again I'm to briefly go over my testament allow the the witness to testify I'll try to move quick so no one a little bit of a time crunch so this is the unlawful detainer bill what this does this modifies the unlawful detainer statute so currently the circuit Clerk issues the writ of possession which is basically a court order and so what this does is this changes it from the Clerk issuing the writ to a circuit judge issuing the rat the thought being it's a it's in essence a court order which is what which is Can remove someone from the premises and we think we feel is best for circuit Clerk circuit judge actually make that determination posted Clarke my understanding is the vast majority of judges in the state we wanted this way some of them already requiring it the vast majority of circuit clerks in the state wanted this way they do not feel comfortable doing it as it is that's what it does there was an issue brought up last time about being able to find a circuit judge in that could cause a problem it does at the time I didn't think about this element where I live in Polk County it and I think the vast majority places in the state it's all online now so as long as a circuit judge as the bill would have an iPad a computer or even phoned he can be found and or can be entered so I did want to make that clarification if I could I will ask my witness to provide some brief testimony certainly. Again Committee because western washer County circuit Clerk of representative Maddox is correct when he speaks about the concern of the circuit clerks around the state in issuing a of a writ of execution on this to my knowledge I've done some research on this this is the only. Type of read that the circuit Clerk can issue without an order or judgment currently and what what this bill would do would. As the. Judges are covered under absolute immunity and circuit clerks are not if there happens to be a mistake made or something was overlooked and the the rate was processed they could come back on the circuit Clerk and as far as lawsuit and things like that I believe in the State of Arkansas there's let there's three or last counties that are not on electronic filing at this point to representative Maddox is point of the availability to have a judge even if they're on vacation electronically sign an order of that those are available and I believe in speaking with the the administrative office of courts this morning that all of the counties in the state of Arkansas are in the process of getting on electronic filing if but there's about three I believe that have not gone live yet. The members are there any questions represent Hudson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair and thank you for working on this bill and bring it back to us it just so I understand the procedure in this case I mean this isn't going to have any requirement where there's a at a hearing or anything that judges just able to go ahead and sign off on on the papers without having that have that please come in and do arguments or anything like that right. That's correct hello required here. President guess what you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair just a point of clarification. The Clerk will still issue the writ of possession it's but it will be after a judge has signed an order essentially directing the Clerk to issue the writ of possession correct. That's correct okay. Members any other questions Senator for the questions we have one individual who signed up to speak for the bill. In the the Scheels. Shall they that are within the. Okay. Members we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representative medics you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you madam chair thank you Committee on clothes for my bill I appreciate a good vote members represent Max because for bill was wishes to the committee we have a motion to do pass on the table is there any discussion of the motion represent guess what you're recognized for discussion thank you madam chair I'd previously been opposed to this bill so I just want to explain the fact of what no longer opposed in these cases typically you've not had to get a court order as they said the the writs of possession came directly from the Clerk after the record was reviewed and it was revealed that there was not an objection that was filed within five days excluding Sundays and legal holidays and the requirement to get a court order for the red issued would seem to slow things down a bit however. after further reflection and and talking with some folks including some judges I do think that you know this is a very minor kind of a step in the process to get the court order but for the Clarks what you have in these cases is sometimes attorneys that filed these unlawful detainer cases which are essentially addiction cases. The very first step in any one of these cases is to protect service on the people who you have sued to get out of the the rental unit essentially and the clerks are in a good position to make a determination of whether or not services been perfected a circuit judges in a much better position to make those kinds of determinations and that really is very important because you don't want to get rid of possession issued and someone kicked out of the out of an a a rental unit it wasn't properly served and so this will ensure that the circuit judges have some review before the red is issued to ensure that service was perfected and once again it is just a small step father step in the process but on the whole I think it's a good change it makes the clerks more comfortable and so I'm not opposed. Thank you. Members any other discussion. Say no further discussion we have a motion on the table all in favor of the motion please say aye. It It opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations representative Matt you have passed your bill thank you thank you committee members we have one more bill we have a short amount of time representive Lundstrum you're recognized to present house bill eleven forty one. Members were passing out impact statement. Members for the impact statements being passed out we are tight on time because we go into session here in about seven minutes. Let me give the committee members. What I'm anticipating we will here on Tuesday. We'll hear fourth house bill Fortino a House bill Fortino nine. House Bill fourteen forty three. House Bill fourteen ninety six. House Bill fifteen forty seven Senate bill two eighty two. And I believe that's what I have on my list and I will certainly text you those numbers again. All right members everyone has in front of them the Arkansas sentencing commission. Statement representative Lundstrum you're recognized to present your bill thank you madam chairman I was dispensed with pleasantries and go straight into the bill and the essence of time last time we discussed rape I think we've got the concept pretty much down Pat what the issues are and we've made some changes in order to help expedite this bill and also I'm right back to you some homework just to give you some information first of all under forcible compulsion on any on bodily impact that is actually from case law in Arkansas and to cite you that case law it is actually from Arkansas Code five twelve and five fourteen one of three five fourteen one oh one and it is defined in code and that is actually been from a an appellate court case for the attorneys in the room. That will the appellate court cases C. R. twenty one nine three and it actually states in the case what bodily impact is and it's quite interesting case I'll be glad to explain that we unfortunately don't have the time at this point However it does define vitally impact. And and and under forcible compulsion. And then also. This keeps going. I would also goes into any other behavior that is also cited in case law and and it breaks it down in this case. And that was taken directly from that as well we removed some of the current concerns that other members but at. And I think that pretty much answers that I think the so that takes care of the argument for void for vagueness the whole reason for this bill was to remove void for vagueness consent puts everyone on notice I think that's incredibly important the. The last thing that I will do to give you one final thing. As far as the sentencing concern there was it could not be determined because of course this is new and we are clarifying the law physical impact it was not required by the FNA and then lastly. This is allowing the courts to clarify when you're talking to a jury you're clarifying consent this not only protects the innocent but hopefully will convict the guilty with that I will open it up for questions members any questions. Seeing no questions we have heard testimony yes madam before yes we and so we're going to by pass the testimony I think and I had a question up here you members that her amendments were engrossed in the bill so that's why we're not passing out the amendments that were already engrossed in the bill any questions. Seeing no questions represent Lundstrum you're recognized to close for your bill yes. Colleagues we have been under a consent agreement since the beginning of this country we passed a consent agreement by the consent of the governed back in seventeen seventy six this isn't something new this clarifies the law and protects the victims and the innocent. I would thank you to put this into code and make it clear for all of those within the sound of my voice and then some. I would appreciate a good vote. Members represent Lundstrum has closed for her bill with the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass is there any discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no. The nose habit the builders failed members we are. Okay. To call the roll I see two hands. Once again members remember you have three options to the roll call yes no or you may remain silent. Representative mix. Representative makes no. Represent the Richmond. Representative Richmond. Representative Gazaway. Representative Gazaway. Representative to Watson representa Y. sin yes. Representative Crawford yes representative Crawford yes representative Scott. But got no. Representative council representative Clowney no. Representative Cooper yes representative Cooper yes representative Richardson representative Richardson no representative Collins representative Collins no. Representative of the representative McCollum. Representing the color no. Representative Hudson the president yes represented Milligan. Representative Milligan yes representative under would represent Underwood yes representative more. Representative more. Representative Duffield yes representative bill yes representative under yes represent the under yes representative Pearce. Representative Pearce. Representative very. Represented very well. The bill is failed. Members we have two minutes I've asked the Speaker to give us five to walk the stairs but we are adjourned Tuesday morning ten o'clock. Six seven.