Judiciary Committee - Senate

Sure seats a quorum we're gonna go in call as many Judiciary. Are the first item on the agenda that we have a number of bills by representative Gazaway. Senator Tucker you will run those okay. You're ready just give them the time when you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair with your permission I'll have Matthew Miller sit with me on these bills this is that in the next batch of technical corrections bills is going to be the biggest batch that we have I'm I'm only going to run the technical corrections bills that that last bill on that represent Gazaway and I have this isn't Nanak technocrats bill I'll pass over that one today so only running ten corrections bills today so the first one on the agenda. This house bill twelve seventy nine section one just delete obsolete language section to clarify the reference to facility to be consistent with the rest of this subsection section three delete an obsolete reference to repeal law in section four reinsert the comedies of the types of things exciting projects we work on it the code revision commission so with that I'll be happy to answer any questions. Our committee you've heard. The Senator Ricky question. Okay. Many members have questions. Anymore no one signed no one signed up to speak for against the bill so Senator Jeez you're recognized for two months. Motion do pass second from. Senator Gilmore. Instruction all those of favour. The Bill pass is to thank you Mr chair thanks only agenda is house bill twelve eighty three this one is a little more meat to it. Section one because the code section set out imposes no sentence other than a fine that makes the offense a violation rather than a misdemeanor pursuant to pursuant to another code section so section one is amended the code section to make this correction and to correct the word usage to conform to code style. Section two the code section set out as being amended to comply with another section of code which says that a law that an action to exemption to the Freedom information act requires a statement to that effect. Are you learn that much of the bill any discussion among members. No one signed up to speak for against. Close for you will yes Mister appreciate a good vote I move do pass. We have a motion by Senator Ricky. Second I have a second thank you say I have a second. in instruction. All the pharmacy a. All opposed. Your passes next bill twelve eighty four thank you Mr chair yes Sir twelve eighty four section one clarifies a reference concerning appointment of a law enforcement officer section two deletes obsolete temporary language that has expired sections three and seven transfer a section concerning childcare facilities to more appropriate title section two repeals the section from title twelve in section seven. Puts it into title twenty and then sections four and five they break an existing section into smaller sections it adds clarifying language for consistency with other sections and then section six of the bill clarifies a reference to the organized militia and causes this section to use consistent terminology. Heart members you are the bill any questions. No wonder speak forty cent rise your question. You go back over those last few words did I hear you say violation yes Sir that's what it's going to be in section six of the bill starting on page nine. Thank you. What can you enter a. Page three line twenty. Is not otherwise prohibited from from federal law from receiving session okay I'm good okay are any other questions. Sam Nunn to your entertain motions. I move to pass a motion I have a second. These questions. All the favor say aye. All opposed the Bill pass. Thank you Mr chair next one house bill twelve a five for title fourteen. This is a little longer sections one through nine eleven fourteen through nineteen twenty one through twenty three twenty five and twenty seven through thirty one all it with the same issue because the code sections addressed impose similar to to a bill we had to to bills ago. Because they impose no sense other than to find the offense in each in each of these code sections is a violation rather than a misdemeanor so that's that's the change that's being made there. Sections ten and twenty because the code sections set out impose a sentence that not another specifies the class of the misdemeanor nor prescribes limitation on a sentence to imprisonment. The offense in each of these code sections is a Class C. misdemeanor so the the sections are mending these code sections to make this correction under you to correct word usage to conform code style. Section twelve section fourteen dash fifty six dash two oh forty ten the code is being amended to the correct defined term is used in the code section correct fine terms residential building design elements not residential design elements and then sections thirteen twenty four and twenty six the code section set out are being amended to subdivide the code sections for clarity. Marcus sent flowers you're recognized. Page one where the. lines twenty seven through twenty nine your sister I can misdemeanor and substitute in violation but then lines thirty through thirty two. still contain the. Penalty. Of three hundred dollars. Not less than three hundred no more than one thousand is that. The penalty for a violation now. For that particular violation it is my and Mr Miller can jump into my understanding is. If the penalties include either fines or imprisonment then it can be a crime a misdemeanor felony where the case might be if the penalty set out in the code is a fine only it's not a it's not a crime it's a violation in the deterrent the penalties for different violations are set out differently depending on what section they are and so for this particular section. The the penalty for this violation now would be between three hundred one thousand dollars but I'll I'll defer to Mister Miller he's got something else to contribute and miss Miller it seems like I've seen. Other places in the code we're violation appears. That there is a smaller penalty less than this thousand dollars Max. Thank you Matthew Miller with the bureau legislative research on that from the outset obviously is if your employee I'm not here to testify for or against the bill but we do prepare help the Commission put these bills together as part of our staff role for the commission so that's the role that I'm hearing today. I would need to look Senator flowers and we can do some research on what types of penalties we have for violations I think it would be kind of a case by case as to the specific offense as I don't think there's a standards came we do have the standard statutory structure where it doesn't have imprisonment it becomes a violation I don't think we have a standard rubric for how the fines have to be for a violation but we can do some research and let you know on that at it because I recall dealing with a traffic offense. And the offense was classified as a violation. And it didn't appear to have this range of of finds. it's it was kind of hard to find in the code for me at the time and that's been several years ago. But it seems like at least in that of part of the code dealing with of a motor division offenses trafficking that the light. It was. Set forth as to what the penalty was. For violation and I don't recall this seems more like a misdemeanor range of penalty. I think it's wondering if you're going to change. From misdemeanor. Tell violation. I think a coach should be consistent. About violation that's that's my point. We can we can check the amounts of those misdemeanors are consistently going to have some sort of. I'm imprisonment associated with them so that becomes the unique identifying back there they also have a range of bonds to better I'm I'm looking now and just like with imprisonment time there's really a standard structure on the fine side for crimes and so for class A. misdemeanor it's up to one year in maximum sentence and a maximum fine of twenty five hundred Class B. misdemeanor up to ninety days maximum fivethousand classy up to thirty days a maximum fine of five hundred my understanding and we're I'm happy to pull this one down and and and let Mr Miller and in the alarm code revision commission to little additional research about it but but my understanding is there's not that same standard rubric on the violation side there is on the misdemeanor side but the whole point of the code revision commissions make sure the code is consistent on points like this so I'm I'm happy to to take this one down for now and and I would appreciate a little bit more research so we can try to be consistent with the terminology we have in our code and the card when it comes to something that I understand. And look at the stop the declassification of violation as the lowest. And so if there's one section of the code that sets out what that range she is of a penalty I'd like to see how the code revision Eighty square is this. What will pull that one down and take a look thank you. Thank you are to. Many house house bill twelve eighty five men pull down. Next twelve eighty seven. Thank you Mr chair this is the term corrections bill for title sixteen sections one through four of this bill of this bill repeal obsolete sections requiring the reading of court records in open court each day. Requiring shares provide fuel for courts and and things along those lines section five repeals an obsolete section allowing a certain circuit court based on the nineteen sixty census to appoint a person service both the core bordering Clerk. if the person was a lawyer or serving as a court reporter prior to February twenty seventh nineteen sixty eight. Section six repeals section creating a fund and that fund is already entitle nineteen. Section seven eight repeal to obsolete sections referring for approval the creation of additional judgeships in nineteen ninety nine sections nine and eighteen transfer a subchapter concerning constables to more appropriate title. section on appeals from title sixteen in section eighteen created and title fourteen section ten of this bill correct references to regular sessions in extraordinary sessions sections eleven and twelve correct references to defend it and person for consistency within each section section thirteen clarifies the language by putting all the exceptions together and updating references for consistency. Section fourteen and fifteen repeal obsolete sections dealing with city courts section sixteen correct references to the driving or boating while intoxicated offense and section seventeen correct references to persons with a disability to use respectful language. Be happy to take any questions or committees of center for you're recognized. So so you're saying that this section no Page five delete the constables is in some other part of the code. It's moving it from title sixteen the title fourteen so if you look at section nine instructs there and then if you decide. yes first I'm sorry page five it strikes it there and then if you look at section eighteen. Thank you thank you senator Page fourteen and reinsert K. thank you. Or any other any other questions from committee Senator Clark recognized. Yes Senator Tucker take me back to the replace cost more with the more appropriate title where is the. Page four. What is a more appropriate title title fourteen. Okay not changing council itself no that's right thank. The nothing that is being changed just move. Any other questions from committee. Sam Nunn NO one here speak for against the bill. I have a motion. I have a motion to pass in the second centers to. All those in favor say aye opposed. The Bill pass. Twelve eighty nine. Thank you Mr share this is the technocrats the bill for title twenty one. Section one because the code section address here this is similar to what we were discussing earlier senator flowers. because the code section imposes no sense other than a fine it's changed to a violation section to the code section addresses being amended to correct a quote from the Arkansas constitution that appears in the code section and a correct word usage to conform to code style section three the code section being addresses is being amended to repeal an internal reference to a different code section and which fees are no longer prescribed. Committee your next question question. Anyone from the audience will speak for against. Say No motion that promotion do pass second by Senator Hester is question. All those in favor say aye. All opposed. passes in. Twelve ninety thank you Mr chair. This is the correct ballot title twenty two. The only section of this bill because the code section being addressed imposes no sense of them to find the offense and code section is a violation rather than misdemeanor. Our committee for next like to the bill the discussion the question. Anyone illness which speak for gas. Seeing none. We have a motion. Motion by Senator Hester second by Senator McKee. Almost favor say aye opposed. The Bill pass. Yes ma'am. I have. I was just looking at at this particular bill twelve ninety yes ma'am and it also has that term violation and defined here is. Hundred dollars. Minimum. And no more than five hundred. So that that's the in the city inconsistency because I thought. With the case that I dealt with years ago was more like this. Range that'll take right so you might wanna. When you when you do your research look at. These bills are you okay with the passage passing twelve yeah it's passed out so okay I think this is more in line what. I I other recalled the penalty for violation to be okay yes ma'am well look at that. Thank you. Okay we're twelve ninety one yes Sir. This is the technical corrections bill for title twenty three. Section one of the bill addresses a conflict that was created in twenty twenty one ACT four oh for an act for ninety four the conflicts cannot be reconciled at four four was signed by the governor March twenty second twenty twenty one back to a ninety four signed by the governor on April twenty fifth twenty twenty one to pursuant to Arkansas Code. The code revision commission codified ACT four ninety four because it was the last enactment section one is setting out and repealing ACT four oh four as a consequence. Sections two through seven because the code section set out again this is the same issue. No sense of the defined the refer to as a violation rather than a misdemeanor sections eight and nine because the code sections. Set out impose a sentence that neither specifies the class of the misdemeanor or prescribes limitation on a sentence to imprisonment there change the class A. misdemeanors and so the sections are making this correction and correcting more usage to conform to code style. What are your questions. So. So are. With all these languages stricken in terms of the formal rate and references to Public Service Commission mission. What's the what's the purpose of a somewhere else in the code. It's a it's a complicated issue Senator flowers the ACT four oh four was inactive last session and then coming behind it was act act act eight ninety four if I show them to you you would think they were identical they appeared identical there is actually additional content in eight ninety four. So the commission looked at that one posession and decided that you would just codify eight ninety four and it would be superseded by four of the supersede for for even though there was a lot of identical content to just to avoid any confusion between having to acts that were so similar but not identical we're just repealing four oh four seven eight ninety four stand by itself into this language is codified in some form elsewhere in the code but the later Act made changes from ACT four oh four. In the end you believe eight ninety four incorporates all of. Are substantially all of for for the commission looked at that at the time this was something they discussed posted twenty twenty one session and made the decision to codify eight ninety four and supersede for for. I think the substantially all is is accurate senator flowers plus the for the simple fact that a ninety four came later and that's supersede yes ma'am. Okay thank you senator Gilmore. This this might be a little off topic for doing here today is first clean up goes but page twenty one section eight where it talks about engineer conductor intoxicated this is guilty of a Class C. misdemeanor I know that you're adding in classe there is that is that consistent with other similar crimes of this sort of intoxication our or those or under the influence while operating machinery or things that consistent as far as being a misdemeanor class of Mr that's something we would need to research to determine here were we're not trying to make substituting just not occur all of the staff just caught mine that's why I would ask we may fall of offline you that and will apply it. Thanks for any other questions from committee. Anyone here from the audience which speak for against. Saying none we have a motion that member motion Senator flowers do pass second center Gilmore all of the favor say aye opposed bill passes twelve ninety four Tucker. Thank you Mr chair. This is that correct bill for title twenty six. Sections wanted to repeal obsolete in contender provisions of uncodified acts that did not become become effective section three and four correct grammatical mistakes and then section five removes an internal reference to subdivision B. for in the code section being amended subdivision before was repeal from this code section twenty fifteen but the reference to it was missed so that's that's it that's it for that bill. I Mark her next match of the billing questions. Anyone from the audience to speak for against saying none we have a motion of a motion to send flowers the second. Yes all second second all favor say aye opposed. Passes sent sent Tucker twelve ninety five thank you Mr chairman as much as I know on the members would like for us to go on forever this is the last one of the technocrats and bills for today it's house bill twelve ninety five Sections one and two correct entity names and references section three correction it also okay correct an entity's name reference but in addition has a grammatical correction and then section four it's just another correction to an entity name for reference. That's really it for the entire bill sections five through eighteen are all correcting entity names section sixteen as clarifying language. The Committee her necklace of the bill. Any questions. Anyone from the artist wish to speak for against. You god we have a motion. Emotions Senator flowers was Senator Ricky. All of favour say aye. All posts. Regulations that Tucker. Thank you Mr thank you members. All right the next item on the both next on the agenda is. Representative Vaught. Thank you Mr chair I have miss Harper join me at the table from yes if you'll just recognize yourself for the record and. Good morning Christian Harper an assistant director with the Division of Children and Family Services okay thank you Mr chair so this bill is to increase the voice of those that are in foster care placement I had a I was at a school speaking with some students and I was talking about a bill that I had passed last session you may remember the bill is the Holocaust bill and and I was talking about how the young man come to the committee and presented the bill for committee that was part of the process of creating that bill and she asked what I please create a bill for higher she's a tenth grader and she said I should after a certain number of times be able to have my voice be heard whenever I'm not in drive safe food to love homa I get jerked out of that that atmosphere which is my foster parents and put back in a home where I have to watch a parent shoot up and I don't get that and I don't have dry safe home and she said after so many times she thought she should at least have a voice in the matter and that's what we're trying to do with this bill is give give the youth a little bit more of a voice thank the Adlai item will still be the person that speaks for the child but it will be the advisable at least take into consideration what the child is saying. That's it our. Committee heard an explosion the bill we have a Senator flowers Jeff's question. When you say that at Leiden will speak for the child the way I read this I mean there has to be a determination by the court to consider the preferences if the juvenile is of sufficient age and capacity to reason regardless of the juvenile's chronological age so it appears. That would take testimony from the trial. Yes ma'am so and concerning senator flowers and so that's correct so the attorney that light on it as as you know they actually represent the best interest of the child and so we actually looked at this language directly from existing language in the domestic relations statute just to make clear that we do want the courts to be able considered considered a preferences of the juvenile. What I was concerned with the statement that the and like them as far as I know that light images offers a report to the court I think representative I was just a knowledge and that they are still represented at their best interests is still represented in the court but this bill would specifically put in black and white that the court may consider the juvenile specific preferences to include but not limited to the juvenile him or herself testifying right so that would Obviously required that the child to take the witness stand the court would have to determine whether the child appreciates The truth Hey it could require the juvenile taking the stand but it would not necessarily require it current law also allows the and hernias at line and represent the best interests to you there's current statute that also says that if the child's preference or opinion differs from that of the attorney of item the attorney ad litem is required to share and that is perspective there are some you were not comfortable testifying in and going up in front of the court which is understandable so we never want to fire that so there are other ways that we could bring these boys to the table and ensure that their particular preference regarding visitation with the parent referred to here it's family time or an actual placement is heard. That would be a concern of mine if the court is not the one determining if the child is of sufficient capacity and just leave it to an attorney at light on I guess the judge could call is the attorney and light on as to what kind of evaluation that attorney and law to made to to come up with the idea that the child has the capacity but it strikes me that the court should be it if the child has a capacity to reason and to state a preference I don't necessarily see why that child. Should not be compelled to say in open court in juvenile court I mean that's a close court proceeding so it's not like she's or he is open to the public and you know the court can even ask for of seclusion and and inquire of the child the established the capacity so I don't get that part. So again ultimately with this bill is doing is just putting and black and white that the court as they do in the domestic relations side now that they may consider the preferences of the juvenile how those those preferences are shared with the court may vary an absolutely include the you've testifying and but again some use not not because the court and is not close to anything like that just in in talking with teens and in other in other older children it can just be an intimidating experience right and so there are different ways that we can have the use voice heard which may include them testifying or it may include and then preparing a written statement that let him read on their behalf they're they're different ways that may happen. But and and so that would be left to the court's discretion yes ma'am. Thank you I wanted to ask another question about. If you will change. Of. The strike visitation online to. five oh line six and. And ten. And place that with family time this act to include siblings and everybody I mean including the parent so family this in particular this bill in the person or family time there that you see is specific to parent child visitation and may include the siblings as well. And so you you change that were visitation the family time to be all inclusive to the inclusive it's also a trend we're seeing on the national child welfare stage and we believe language is important and in visitation and can sometimes candidate that that awkward visit in the DHS county office we're trying to get away from that right so that we can have the visits in parks in the parents home as appropriate so the parent can for example practice preparing meals are doing bath time and so that that is why that language changes there you will see it again I do make clear this is actually not a DHS Billy provided technical assistance representative bought and that DHS will have its own bill that's forthcoming and you'll see that that language change in that bill as well because I would think when use were of. Family time that may include grandparents aunts and uncles. Yes ma'am I can. For a. It would hope that DHS's bill would be a little bit more clear okay. Thank you thank you senator Rashi of questions. Thank you representative will appreciate you bringing this to. Sure of course of the juvenile and these include like we've had it in the committee. Yes senator my Mike is a At sufficient age. It says the juvenile. If the juvenile sufficient age and then it was in regards to juveniles chronological age define that for me I I like I've heard it but I can remember. And so so there isn't necessarily a specific age of cystic knowledge in there and that there are some children and that you know chronologically you may have an eight year old the developments we want your old maybe operating at the capacity of a four year old and another one at a ten year old and so it's just making that determination this is at the discretion of the judge that's correct. Is there any. Anything that there's concern with that the judge. Is not allowing that to a I've heard and in years past I know we made a lot of improvements not yourself over appointment I used to get so frustrated and lot of times it was adults we're a judge would you should a family member of staff pertinent information critical information. And they couldn't give it in and I sure don't want that have been the child so is is there anything that could be tightened up more on that are can you give me an explanation. That's what we're trying to do with this bill as to make sure that that child voice is actually been hired and this young lady did not feel like her voice was being heard and what she wanted to do was stay in safe drive home with food and love and and she just said after you know certain number of times you should at least be able to say Hey wait I want you to hear what I'm saying aye I like where I'm at I feel safe there I'm getting fed there but you're sending me constantly back to where I'm being traumatized. And that's what this is supposed to try to help a group where the judges in on any of the verbiage on this. Yes Sir okay I thank. Thank you Mr. Senator again while you're recognized by just a motion property are any other questions from committee. At you senator flowers you're recognized. Christian I think. It's Kristin yes thank you at the can't recall the last name I with respect with the last name with funds. to the ad light items have a. The report that they submit to the court. Is it a form. Of our is there certain required information. And then and if so I would anticipate that. Whether the child has a preference would be one of those boxes to check. So I I feel comfortable speaking on behalf the attorney and let and let him program do not represent them and generally speaking to my knowledge there's there's not a standard form no ma'am and you know they prepare and their questions to examine the various witnesses and bring forth their perspective that way and that I would have to defer to the attorney in latam program. The representative thought that you know I think the intent is good in your bill but. Going forward if it becomes law. I'd like to know that and line items. Read the new law they have and they actually had input in on the bill yes ma'am and sometimes. I think it's more prudent to have at least some required. Required. Content of the report beyond their narratives that they find is relevant to the case. And so. I would really like to see some things that a court certainly would require. L. because sometimes I mean my experience. You know that light I'm submits the report but. If it's a heavy docket. All right judge may not be reading everything. And there should be some check list. That at least covers. Things that as a legislator we have asked them to consider that's something to consider and something to pass on to I guess A. L. C. R. the judicial council yes ma'am thank you. Thank you senator flowers Senator Clark you're recognized thank you Mr resembled a really appreciate you bringing this bill of and I you've read it and you can't imagine what someone would not agree with it but. Did you have to make any changes to make the judges and a lot of happy and if so what kind of changes did you have to make I had actually taken out in the best interest of and they asked me to very place that and put it back and so that. Yeah so so initially we did try to go a little water and to address representative blots constituents concerns and so and so that I know that. And and so the initial drive version of the bill and as representative Bob was saying regarding the attorney that light in their duties to the court we had the language had been stricken in the best interest up And so that would would have required deadlines to directly represent the juvenile and they felt uncomfortable with that and so that language has been removed from the bill okay thank you. Or any other questions from committee. We have no one signed up to speak for against the bill. So You want going to close for you will Centerville representable yes Sir and again this bill came from a young lady in my district who really wanted to give a bigger voice to everybody that's in the foster care system like her to be able to feel lack somebody is actually engaging and listening in to what she was saying and what she was wanting and with that I would appreciate a good vote. Okay. So we have a motion by Senator Tucker do pass I have a second by Senator McKee McKee. Any discussion. All those in favor say aye hi All opposed. Graduations thank you Mr chair thank you Mr a committee. Are we have a next item on the agenda is referred senate Johnson. Senate bill two seventy one. Senator Johnson you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman committee Senate bill two seventy one this is a shortage bill I have ever entity can say that In in getting this bill drafted actually I was trying to deal with the what I thought was a transportation issue and and public safety I thought it would go to transportation committee which I chair the smart lawyers that work for the bureau in and came face questions on because there's a offense involved it does go to Judiciary so all this does is it takes out the clause in the law that when someone is loitering if they're asking for anything as charity or a gift now when you do that you've triggered the first amendment and we've not trying to regulate free speech and anyway we're simply trying to create a situation of public safety so it and again you get into a lot of uh case law and this and that really that as I said the smart lawyers that we have working for us tell us this is the way you have to do it and and we spent a lot of. Cases about words if you're if you're loitering but yours your exercising your first amendment rights there's some it triggers some other things and courts tend to look at that more than they do that the public safety aspect of creating a traffic hazard to this is that's all the bill does I hope it's an explanation that will work but certainly it's a lot more complex than just one page bill but I will be happy to attempt to answer any questions. Thank you Mr. I'm really just is a little confusing so I'm just trying to understand right now you can only be convicted of ordering if you're asking for anything as charity or a gift that is that what current law is this is the current law now senator I have not researched other sections in the code that might might be applicable but in this particular section that that's what this is so it's it's more of a I think the original language you know I speculate anyway I don't know that it was done to try to stop the people that are you know using the the public by ways to I ask for money or or gift or even solicit for a legitimate charity but if this is not about their first amendment rights their speech their actions there the legitimacy of their charity or whatever this is simply about the the safety and the and the extra like the weird why did not the the desire to Solicit whatever they do have a this is this is really just about that as a set that started out as a transportation bill I thought but you know you have the advantage of being a lawyer and I don't but I depend on the spot people the AG's office and that the bureau to help us navigate the the code okay thank you thank you Sir. Yes thank you Mr I'm glad I'm not the only one upon this confusing of I see here that within section one and then this we've got three it are we is there a lot of code here that were not seen I think there is yes Sir. Because somehow this is it that's the only thing that's loitering. And for water we accomplishing but taking it out. We're. Taking away the implication or the actual fact that we are judging people on their first amendment right to to ask for something which is been deemed by multiple court decisions to be free speech. Okay and there's this may bring you this bill is or specific instance where somebody's been. Ticketed for ordering I saw the bill as a way to deal with the and originally my my attempt was to regulate things are related to the two public waste roads again I fax acceleration is a transportation bill but we did have assistance from both the attorney general's office and the bureau to put this together but I'm trying to put or we. Trying to make it easier to ask for money on the road that's what I'm or make it harder. That seems to make any well my intent centers just to make the road if you will use the road is a good example a safer place both for the pedestrian a person that might be you know I mean loitering we think about loitering is that something you do to someone else but the a person is loitering potentially is putting both themselves and others in danger and that's what what this was was trying to to stop is both the individual that might be the a perpetrator of the offense of ordering. they not only put themselves in danger they put other people in danger for example if you're a lowering in the street and I combined I Dodge in my car Dadaji but I hit to center Tucker's carton he's injured and the only there's others that could be involved rather than just to the person is loitering and and and and the other driver. It would be really helpful to know what the rest of the code says thank you will it send flowers. Sorry sent karti finished. Of yes of. If the lesser somebody here that can speak to this of both the previous language what what this changes of. The look said I'm still confused. Senator if if I may Mister chairman I think Senator Clark raises a good point I do pledge that if indeed the committee is kind enough to get this bill out today I will bring to the well the I will provide you all with the entire code section and I will bring it to the well so I can explain where it fits into the whole whole thing. Mr group who could we wait Haak a sex worker pulls up this code yeah if I could chairman okay center sent flowers you're recognized chips coke. Okay I have that code five seventy one two one three on loitering. Hey read Hey person commits the offense of lawyering is he or she wine lingers remains our problems in a public place on the premises of another person without apparent reason. Under circumstances that warrant alarm are concerned for the safety of all persons or property in the vicinity and upon enquiry by a law enforcement officer refuses to identify himself or herself and give a reasonably credible account of his or her presence and purpose. Two lingers remains our profiles in our near a school building not having a reason our relationship involving custody of our responsibility for a student and not have an written permission from anyone authorized to grant permission three which he's change in here now. Reads presently lingers or remains on the sidewalk. Roadway our public right of way in a public parking lot or public transportation vehicle or facility our own private property for the purpose of asking any for anything as charity or gift. A. In a harassing or threatening manner B. in a way likely to cause alarm to another person R. C. Under circumstances that create a traffic hazard or impediment for lingers or remains in a public place for the purpose of of unlawful gambling five lingers or remains in a public place for the purpose of engaging our soliciting another person to engage in prostitution or deviate sexual activity six lingers or remains in a public place for the purpose of unlawfully buying distributing or using a controlled substance seven lingers or remains in a public place for the purpose of I'm lawfully Bahraini distributing or consuming an alcoholic beverage eight. Lingers or remains on or about the premises of another person for the purpose of spying upon are invading the privacy of another person R. nine lingers or remains on or about the premises of any offsite customer bank communication terminals without any legitimate purpose purpose be upon among the circumstances that may be considered in determining whether a person is loitering are that the person everyone takes flight upon the appearance of a law enforcement officer. Two refuses to identify himself or herself three manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or herself or any object. Or has acted in a harassing or threatening manner or in a way likely to cause alarm to another person after sunset or before sunrise it has a subsection C. D. and he is not very long so I'll just go ahead and read M. C. says unless flight by the actor. Or another circumstances circumstance makes it impracticable prior to an arrest for an offense under subdivision eighty one. Which is the the part about the lingering remain in a probably not a problem public face are. A private premises somebody. Of this section the law enforcement officer shall report the actor and our opportunity to dispel any alarm that would otherwise be warranted by requesting the actor to identify himself or herself and explain his or her presence and conduct. E. it is a defense to a prosecution under subdivision a one of this section if the law enforcement officer did not for the defendant an opportunity to identify himself or herself and explain his or her presence and kind of are to. Here's at trial that an explanation given by the defendant by to the law enforcement officer what's true action ended believe by that one four point of order. Our I just are we on two seventy one. Seventy one this so it's like a one sentence bill but we're okay the question was about. The surrounding language in that code section and it's not thought that it should always be considered what else is in the code that applicables to what we are trying to amend the code to be I thank you are you cover what was applicables to the two thousand election yes Lauren is a U. S. C. misdemeanor okay my point is this. This bill. By striking the language of the has for the purpose of asking for anything as charity or gift. That's well and good. But that whole provision should be stricken because in my opinion it was put in the code for the purpose of targeting that person on the street asking for charity or a gift and the other surrounding. This section of the code deal with harassing of alarming threatening other people. And so it's covered so this could easily just subsection three. Good decisions for. It may get to brought. By this striking the language about for the purpose of asking for anything as charity or gift that's just my opinion senator Johnson okay and Senator flowers I was listing for a specific question if if it was one I missed apologize would you agree no ma'am I would not agree to attend to Gilmore you're recognized. Yeah I think we we may have someone from the AG's office in the room could we ask them if they some sort of interpretation as to what what this is doing and the. You go the other table recognized Sir for the record thank you. At one of these are honored on the record okay thank you chairman. The Adam Jackson with the attorney general's office Senator Johnson front this is actually the body the language of for the purpose of asking for anything as charity or gift brings up a first amendment issue Back I guess about four years ago now that's a twenty nineteen case of Rogers verses Bryant it's nine forty two F. third of four fifty one that's in a circuit case directly relating to this statute the eighth circuit basically said that that particular language creates a content restriction and in doing so they found that if I'll that the statute violates the first amendment so by striking that language or attempting to clean it up so that it no longer violates the first amendment it's really is just a simple fix to clean up what the eighth circuit said was unconstitutional okay. Okay do this Senator flowers has questions right so if you're just trying to Comply with what the court's ruling was would you not agree that the remaining portions of this section five seventy one two one three of the code already take care of loitering are lingering The offense of Laurie. Have you read that the rest of the code. Vision. I've got the rest of it in front of me I mean loitering is kind of a broad offense any incorporating many different you know subsets but. This particular fix is really do is just to clean up a first amendment issue it's not an issue of like whether or this whole thing it is is needed or not it's to clean up that one particular problem brought up by the courts but it appears to me would you agree that. Strike in that hole subsection thirty. We would do the same thing because. You still have loitering as a crime criminal offense on the books thank goodness attention to all of these called for the offensive behavior harassing threatening manner likely to cause alarm to another person create a traffic hazard or impediment that's all in here. In the rest of the statute well that that's part of the section three that you're talking about striking so if you strike that you lose all of this it's still in this code in this part of the code if you read that whole section you'll see that before this subsection three was put in there. It dealt with all these things the only reason subsection three was put in there was to get people off the street from pandering. And begging people for money. That's what I was put in there. Would you agree center I'm I'm looking for the the language you're referencing in the rest of the statute and and I'm not seeing it in the rest statute so if you strike the language of section three as it affects As You specifically pointed out to harassing or threatening manner causing alarm to another person or creating a traffic hazard pen if you strike section three all that language is part of three so you lose out look at this subsection B.. Five seventy one two one three B.. Among the circumstances that may be considered in determining whether a person is loitering are that the person takes flight is one of one the parents of the law enforcement officer. refuses to identify himself or herself three manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or herself for has acted in a harassing or threatening manner or in a way likely to cause alarm to another person after sunset or before sunrise. Ford center the full I mean for with that that closing clause of after sunset or before sunrise limits so you still don't have at three is is kind of a a catch all for all times in circumstances where that one little subset of four has the clause of of after sunset or before sunrise that's further limiting but again it goes I'm going to reiterate the the purpose of this bill is to fix what the eighth circuit said was unconstitutional. The eighth circuit didn't appear to have any other issues with that they just said that because the language of for the purpose of asking for anything as charity or gift made it a content restriction on a first amendment. We'll of my point is and I'd ask you to look at that whole section and wouldn't you agree that All everything else. Is covered littering is covered. And the court struck down the part about people standing on the side of the road begging for money. Okay. Large they said Ricky your question. Senator Clark thank you Mr. The. It does appear that senator flowers is correct. That this section. Up till now was specifically. Four people asking for money. Because that's what the that's what it says. That's the one thing with. I'll agree with that interpretation okay specifically. For that and we remove that it opens it up to anything else and here's my concern. And I know that Senator Johnson wouldn't want this to happen and I don't think they do use office will just happen is more than one time I have been on the sidewalk. With a political science. And more than one time somebody's called the police. More than one time the police thought I couldn't be there. Now I had the ability to call to get the Attorney General on the phone that most people don't have. And now this opens it up I think two were possibly. A different interpretation of the if they think I'm cause alarm or think that I might be a traffic hazard because I'm back here on the sidewalk of when before we were doing anything like that in this section we were just dealing with. One thing and I think just removing those words doesn't just fix that I think it opens up to the things in the wrong. Exactly it's a question for me Sir Clark would score for the AG could I responded first and parted let him give me while he's reading because I've. First saw I remember specific situation in this specific place in your district where we were both caring side I was campaigning with you and I did not see anything that we would would do that would have met the test of a B. and C. in in subsection three so I again I again that's my interpretation I'm not a lawyer either but your interpretation versus a law enforcement officer's interpretation. Yes Sir but I don't think we were threatening anyone no I am enclosing it shouldn't been causing alarm I would or and certainly traffic hazard they didn't want us to close to where for people people or engrossing and are not reported that I've I was specifically in Harrison at one point and in Mountain Home in another point at another point and. The was not causing a traffic hazard and I wasn't doing anything that would cause alarm holding a political science but those kind of things can be emotional people don't like the particular sign that you're holding. Of and so. Want to and we had to clear up in both those cases that I have absolutely have to be there and so is over other citizen in the state as long as we're not doing those things and I think. What you want to do. If for which on Constitutional but but this right now only does one thing. And we remove it we moved this is words it Scott a potential deal a lot more. I will defer to our attorney to answer the rest your questions Senator. Since the court could you are you finished. I was still waiting for an answer from the G. okay Senator under the the the faxes you've given me while the there I guess it in some broad abstract there there could be potential to open it up under the facts you've given where you're standing there on the side holding a political sign that doesn't meet either the other day of the test under a B. or C. so I mean that and you as you said you you brought it to the the officer's attention you you were able to get someone on the phone say Hey this doesn't meet the test I was able to get someone on the part of the other boys start senate and I will always be the so I expressly wanted that answer on video thank you. Senator Tucker you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair. So I understand the content base restriction of the concern what the eight circuit that I I understand what you're trying to do but I sort of two comments and I just want to invite you to respond to them one is. Our code is unfortunately littered with sections that have been rendered unconstitutional by courts that we haven't gone back in after the fact to clean up. So I don't know that it's totally necessary to clean up something that a court to set aside constitutional but it may be a good idea to but we don't always do it so I'm I'm just sick commenting on that the second thing is I I agree with senator Clark and with senator flowers that this subsection three the entire purpose of it was for people who are asking for charity or a gift and so it may be the better clean up approach rather than just striking that one Clause would be to institution to strike the entire subsection and that way we're removing the content based description I mean the contrabass restriction and we're not creating other risks that Senator Clark identified that would that would be my suggestion. Art any other committee members have questions. No one signed up to speak for against the bill. Senator Johnson will close for your bill. The first one thank the committee for this robust discussion I appreciate senator flowers reading the entire section of the code because it was informative I believe that our friend from the Attorney General's office responded that there were some variations that now I think even Senator Tucker who spends probably more time than he would like with code revision issues would stipulate that there probably some redundant sections in the code that we state say the same thing a slightly different way another time but I believe that this week meets the test of what we're trying to do I do disagree of Serra Tucker I think every instance that we can if we are been told we really know something is unconstitutional in the code perhaps we should clean it up get it out even things that we disagree with the court in what they were saying but if we take it out than any citizen ought to be able to to read the law and know what the law is any given point and I so that's that's simply of my opinion on this but but I do believe this is a good bill it it gives us a lesson enforcement tools for people that are not only. In some concert arresting but there it's a dangerous thing I have seen situate what prompted this bill was I saw a situation where an individual was up Walking out into the street between cars at the Rodney Perim road off ramp of interstate six thirty which if you've. You headed westbound those you know it it's three lanes getting off the freeway and summer going straight on the Rodney Perim summer turning left and going down toward canis park and others are turning right on the Mississippi it's a dangerous place and when you you see people ordering their and and stepping in the traffic and getting right on the edge of the curve that with that was what prompted the bill again I saw it as a transportation bill but other things are not always as they seem so I'm grateful they were presented to judiciary and I would certainly appreciate a good vote and that that Mister chairman I'm close. Our. Senator Johnson's close for his bill. Sure would entertain a motion. We have a motion do pass I have a second by Senator Ricky. Any discussion. All those in favor say aye. All opposed no. Is have it all. We have a roll call. Senator Clark. With the pinyin of the Attorney General records. yes. Senator Clark yes. Searcher McKee Senator McKee yes. Senator Gilmore. Senator Gilmour yes. Senator Tucker. Senator Tucker now. Senator Rice. Senator Rice yes. Senator Hester yes Senator Hester yes. Senator flowers Senator flowers no. The real question the Bill pass Johnson. With five yeas to nays. Okay nothing with nothing else on the agenda we are adjourned. A lot of signatures.