Judiciary Committee- House

Thank you I committee and and if it's okay may I bring a guest up with the need to present this bill. Quick guest we don't want to discourage that out. I'll do the talking hoses out me answer some questions this is represented McCollum's bill and Senator Clark so Basically this bill deals with suspension of a driver's license for or vehicle registration for failure to pay failure to appear. Thank you to pay is when someone doesn't pay a fine when it's due failure to appears when someone doesn't show up to court date obviously they're both consider criminal offenses account penalties no one condones or accepts when this happens but the particular penalties of suspending someone's driver's license or hang on are you presenting the amendment right now I'm sorry what the amendment yep let's speak to the amendment okay. the managers and sponsors in it makes a couple minor changes regarding the information that's provided these were at the request of a believe the judges saw that's all right let's have we passed the amendment out to everyone yet. It's on your desk are there any questions on the amendment. Do I have a motion to adopt the amendment. I have a motion to adopt the amendment all in favor say aye any opposed amendments adopted now we'll start from there okay thank you so suspending a driver's license for failure to pay failure to appear these are are very difficult and problematic penalties I think we all heard last week representative Payton spoke about as used car tax bill a vehicle is essential especially in Arkansas rural state if you can't drive it makes it harder for you to pay the fine or appear in court as the case may be a suspended license or registration prevents someone from holding a job taking care of relative to your children and really participating in life if someone is not showing up in court taking away their ability to drive makes it harder for them to then show up and same with the fine so it's a counterproductive punishment to getting good results in our criminal justice system it also creates a situation where if someone is driving they're subject to getting stopped and charged with driving on a suspended license that's a that's a cascade of these criminal charges which can really add up to serious time and do add up to serious time when the underlying offense could actually be very minor. I can lead to a spiral in someone's life and on top of that when you get your driver's license or registration reinstated you have to pay a fee hundred dollar fee on top of any underlying fine which many people just can't afford so what's the states have taken different approaches to this there's a national effort under way some have stop suspending driver's licenses altogether senator Bozeman actually is leading the national effort to try to stop suspending driver's licenses for failure to pay Senator Clark and this bill is not trying to do all that all we're trying to do here is make some small improvements to how we do things three things it really does referred to create some additional due process for these failure to to pain failure to appear charges second says that if your failure to pay or peer charge was dropped or you're acquitted then you got to pay the reinstatement fee that's just kind of a matter of of fairness and and reasonable this since you were convicted of it and the third thing it does is provide for another option in these cases which is the restricted driver's license that preserves the punishment related to driving but still allows a defendant to drive for certain essential purposes I won't get into it beyond that I'll just leave it right there and see if there's any questions and also but my guess introduce himself and to be able to answer questions as well. Ample Chapman hang on just certain are there any questions. Right are you Mr Chapman yes ma'am okay Mister Chapman is signed up to speak for the bill you're recognized please identify yourself thank you madam. I'm Paul Chapman I'm the director for an organization called restore hope Arkansas we help communities that want to collaborative we work together to reduce incarceration the need for foster care and as such we work with many judges and law enforcement officers and I will say that as we've we have a software system that allows us communication it tracks the progress or regress individuals up to population level that folks coming back from prison at a pretty significant rate have suspended driver's license it is one of the main barriers many of the individuals that are in our district courts that that we go and an on board as clients have fees and fines they may not have a felony but they do have a suspended driver's license which is a barrier to them actually going to work to pay off their fees and fines and so we help coordinate those actions and I would say that of the judges that we work with or are very interested in having the additional tool of being able to issue a temporary or restricted driver's license so that an individual could go ahead and go to work or go to meetings go to school and then hopefully remove themselves from the judges stock. Members are there any questions. We have no one else to speak of signed up to speak for against the bill represented college you're recognized close for your bill. Thank you I'm close for the bill I move do pass as amended as amended members we have a motion to do pass as amended on the floor is there any discussion. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it congratulations you passed your bill thank you. Members let's turn to Senate bill five sixty represent guess what you're recognized. Members there is an amendment on this bill. If they're in the deaths. The Amendment is on your desk. Represent guess what you're recognized to present the amendment. Thank you madam chair and I don't have a copy of the amendment has that been passed out. It's on our desk let's see I'm getting I apologize I no problem the problem is coming to you. I believe it's just adding co sponsors but also get. Thank you madam chair in that manager corrective currently just as co sponsors so I'd make a motion we adopt the amendment there is a motion to adopt the amendment is there any discussion all in favor please say aye any opposed amendment has been adopted you're recognized. Thank you madam chair members let me begin by saying that a representative McCollum was going to present this bill but he has bills in at least two other committees that he has to be present in right now to present and so he asked me if I would present this for and someone who used to be a deputy prosecutor let me say that Well I appreciate the intent of the bill I'm not necessarily indicating my support for it by presenting it I'm just helping representative a call not representing the bill but this will affect the way civil asset forfeitures work in Arkansas if you're not familiar with a civil asset forfeitures when the when police or law enforcement agency makes an arrest involving in certainly go illegal activity they can seize property in certain circumstances in connection with that arrest and then file a petition to have that property forfeited to become the property the state of the state and the money that can be earned from the sale of of property that has been forfeited then goes to benefit law enforcement agencies around the state I thank you talked with many the law enforcement agencies they would tell you that all the money that they get from the civil asset forfeiture is very important for them and other programs they operate and so this probably isn't sound like I'm really speaking in favor of the bill but I just want you to know that that's that's what the civil asset forfeiture program does with respect to what this bill does and how it actually operates with Sylvester Smith this year and I think that he can speak in detail about exactly what this bill does none of that there other groups here including the prosecuting attorney's association and others who may be able to speak to this bill but with chairs permission I'd like up for Mister Smith to be allowed to make his comments with regard the bill Mister Smith you're recognized to speak in favor of the bill thank you Ballinger my name is Sylvester Smith and is bills you know I'm a local attorney and business consultant and and just to be very clear I also support civil asset forfeiture I think it's a viable tool for Prescott interns they have in this bill does not is not intended to have a negative impact on their ability to go after bad guys no assets so this is what happened previously or currently the way the statues. Written if a. Representive flowers has a car and I ask her to borrow her car and unbeknownst to her I move a kilo of cocaine in the car get pulled over the law enforcement officers will take me and then they will take her car and they will file criminal charges against me and they will file civil a civil suit against her car because it was in their opinion an instrumentality of a drug transaction it was using a drug transaction now we all agree that that is the way the process works now here's the problem when it comes representive flowers sees what we call a innocent third party do you have anything to do with the underlying transaction and so she is entitled to her own notice that all this is going on currently under the law what the state would give for when they go after her car is a summons and complaint that someone says representative flowers you have thirty days to answer this complaint otherwise you're gonna lose your property. now open else represent flowers is little section in the code that says her answer has to be verified now the Supreme Court is determined the verified means signed and sworn in from the presence of a notary none of the documents representative flowers got. Told her that her answer would need to be signed and notarized and so as you can imagine with a lot of people poor people are retirees even the folks that are critical learned it in the law like myself wouldn't necessarily think that in answer to a lawsuit we need to be sworn because is these find legal minds down here represent Collins represents Hudson would tell you anytime any of us to each other for anything I represent because of that time I ask you on the date you said no and it hurt my heart so bad and I want to file suit for intentional infliction of emotional distress when I serve you with the paperwork you get a notice in a summons it was say in thirty days you need to respond or you lose it doesn't say it have to be verified and in that instance her response to me would not have to be verified and so in every of the instances in Arkansas law when people are suing each other citizens every day none of us are entitled to this special verification no one except the state and so what this bill does is it puts the state on the same terms as its citizens when they switch up And so no longer would represent a flowers is answer have to be notarized. Additionally are the the law creates two classes of response representative flowers the innocent third party she would get forty five days to file her response because again she didn't have anything to do with me and my little drug scheme that was running out her cards you just being a nice person. As to me I would get the standard thirty days to respond a reserve flowers also would have the state would have a higher burden of proof when it comes to her they would have to prove that she either knew what I was doing their car or should have known and they would have to prove that based upon a clear and convincing standard which under the law is as you must know the second highest standard of proof that anyone would have a court now when it comes to me the criminal it would just be the traditional more likely than not preponderance of the evidence standard and so this really is designed to protect grandma's fathers brothers people who have to get caught up in the circumstances because they themselves were duped by the criminal and this was a compromise bill to send the Clark and I work with the prosecuting turns Association on they wrote a lot of it and so I don't believe there's going to be any opposition to this and then finally there's one last change resent Gazaway talked about. The moneys that these funds produce and so we also added a section that would allow prosecutors at their discretion to use these funds to give a grant of up to one thousand dollars anytime a law enforcement officer dies within the jurisdiction I serve on the claims commission is a lot of you know and we get the request for certain benefits when law enforcement officer dies it would just be great for the prosecuting attorney to be able to just write a check when they heard and also passed passed away in the jurisdiction in this bill these officers put their lives in limit jeopardy collecting these funds and so it just gives one more option for the prosecutors to have a to utilize these funds to help the community and with that I'd be happy to take any questions but I'm sure if you would allow. Represent because you're recognized for a question. Thank you I'm sure and and thanks for the bill I like the idea of like a lot about it I just you know with regard to some of the things you're saying I almost feel like we need to be going a little bit further because we're still asking the third party to file what's called an answer in circuit court and I don't a they're gonna be able to do that or Sir Clark to the server course right how will they know what that is could we just do a form or something and said that would simplify. In a there was a lot of conversation about for creating a form to give them so they can just kind of fill in the blank I believe that there was a joint hearing between this committee in the Senate committee when there was a lot of talk about just getting read as the civil forfeiture just making all criminal this we believe is just a fair compromise to not move the bark so far down the field in this one session because the onus will be on somebody to create that for you got to put down prosecutors got them the Clerk and so we thought this is a fair compromise the other thing that I would say from studying this issue representive Collins a lot of those answers a hand written in so the verification requirement really put people in jeopardy where are they were subject to motions to dismiss because of course if you hand write it there's no verification but I found I my practice I do a lot of eviction work and I deal with people who sometimes of poor don't have access to a lawyer in the summons that they give does give them sufficient information to you have the address the phone number not the phone number the address for the Clerk and even the people who don't know a lot or able to call the Clerk and just find out what they have to do so I don't believe that this place is to have a burden and then remember unlike every other litigant in Arkansas build out forty five days to sort all that out if this passes and so I I I do believe that we ought to give this a chance to see how it works for folks okay quick follow up so that the answer is not a defined term here it's not and with reference to anything if you could just really be anything basically even hand written yes Sir and not I really appreciate you raising that because the current version of the law it requires certain doctor not only specific responses like we're how do you have an interest in the property where did your interest in property come from it also requires that they produce supporting documents and so with the example of representatives flowers Kerr she would need to produce the title or the ridge. Ation well the registrations in the car and lock up so high she supposed to do that and so we we were very thoughtful about you saying in answer so even if they write a hand written note this is I bought that car I paid for it that would be sufficient to avoid in order for default judgment whereas under the present statute I think a hand written notarized answer that doesn't include the vehicle registration may get you a default thanks. Members are there any other questions. Seeing no other questions we have no one else is signed up to speak for against the bill represent guess what you're recognized to close. Ballinger thank you I didn't know if the prosecuting attorneys we're going to get the opportunity come appearance it is fine that they haven't I'm not sure that. They're here okay sign up so and and we probably got reached the point or gone beyond the point where it's it would be appropriate this point so I'm happy to close for the bill you know I will say that as Mr Smith said to my understanding that the prosecuting attorneys have reviewed this bill and that they're okay with the language in it that certainly makes me feel a lot better about it you know again this is an important tool civil asset forfeiture for law enforcement they use this to find very vital programs within their agencies and with the prosecuting attorney's office. I'm not saying that the civil asset forfeiture this process could be reformed I think that's what this is an attempt to do to protect the innocent owners of property from having their property forfeited with when apparently there been a baby at least an instance or two of that arguably happening so I think this bill attempts to address that and with that I'd make a motion to pass. As amended as amended thank you I have a motion to do pass on the floor as amended. Any discussion. All in favor please say aye All opposed say no the ayes have it bill this carried next fill up is house bill nineteen thirty four representing Miller. Members there is impact assessment for house bill nineteen thirty four it should be on your desk. You're recognized represent Miller. Thank you thank you madam chairman committee of this bill is pretty simple I think you'll be a good thing for Arkansas and basically says if you Committee at. A. Sexual crime crime against a child. When you go to prison for life. Without parole. I'm sorry to hear about these things happen and I would like for Arkansas I think Arizona has done this that's where I got the idea and I believe that it would be a good thing for Arkansas to say Hey were fixing it serious if you're if if you're convicted of of rate. child sex trafficking child **** distribution production whatever any of these offenses you go to prison. For life without parole there is we did eliminate the possibility for someone and statutory cases say an eighteen year old you know is in a statutory Romeo Juliet up situation this would not apply in those cases of however in the case of forcible rape or anything else I know of no opposition other than. Other than those who may be contemplating of child sex crimes. So with that I'll be happy to answer any questions. Members are there any questions. I see no questions we have one individual who signed up to speak against the bill. This residence where you're recognized important speak against the bill. So I Arkansas Association criminal defense lawyers NO one is for crimes against children the problem is is that this is a one size fits all. Bill that leaves no discretion whatever for the circumstances of the of the defendant or any mitigating issues any defenses that do not rise to the level of a full defense treats an eighteen year old and a forty year old in exactly the same way of the current statutes provide for a range and that's for a reason because different cases of different circumstances should be treated differently depending on on the personal characteristics of the defendant the nature of the case whether it was a one time deal where no physical harm occurred as opposed to a circumstance it was repetitive a situation where harm which were harm happen and this this this would cause hi hi I haven't seen the fiscal impact statement but I am I am assuming that it would be huge. I'm happy to answer any questions. Members are there any questions. I have no questions thank you for coming for your testimony today we have no one else is signed up to speak for against the bill represent Miller you're recognized recognized to close for your bill. Thank you madam chair and with all due respect. I do appreciate criminal defense attorneys however number one there's never ever ever ever. A case where forcible rape. Child **** production and distribution. And child sex trafficking does not have a physical mental emotional harm. All those children for the rest their lives never happens. Of I think that's a little. You know I thought about a lot of the things that that the German said before we drafted this bill and. I keep coming back to the same point. Don't do it. Dole. Sexual assault in any way. Anybody. But especially a child. So that I would ask for your vote. Members represent Miller his close for his bill what are 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 say aye. All opposed say no the ayes have it the bill is Kerry. Thank you Committee. Turn to House Bill nineteen forty house bill nineteen forty four. Represent guess what you're recognized for senate bill. You're recognized thank you madam chair and manager I apologize but I have a witness who's here who is actually constituents who was hoping to help explain this bill with me would she be allowed to come to the table I to what wanted she's explain it first and we have questions that will bring up she's not signed up but all permitted because I think she drove away used to get here she did by so wanted to explain it first and then we'll talk that thank you madam chair. A committee house bill nineteen forty concerns. When there is a deed that is made prior in time to the execution of a will. And the deed conflicts with the will in terms of the disposition of property. And so you imagine an instance where someone makes out a deed to their property do you know that upon death for instance dating that property to someone and then later in time makes out a will. This says upon my death I want the property to be disposed of this particular way. Currently in Arkansas law. The deed controls over we'll even made after the fact. And so what this bill would do in with this bill specifically concerns beneficiary needs so we're talking about a deed that The conveyance is made after the the person's death who is the owner of the property at the time but who has by a beneficiary deed deeded the property upon their death to to be in someone else's ownership interest at that point this would say that if they make out a will after the fact that. Conflicts with the way the beneficiary deed was made out earlier that the will would control which is pretty much the exact opposite of the way Arkansas law works right now of the deed controls over will regardless of what you provided for in that will and I think there are some reasons for that my understanding is that there are there groups who are opposed to this bill. Who may be here to speak today But if not at that's what the bill does And I have a constituent here who had this issue that's why filed this bill and if with the chairs permission I'd ask that she be allowed to come going to tell her story certainly you may bring your forward member so she's coming forward are there any questions a representative Gazaway. At this point. If you just press the button right there in front of you so the light will turn on red and then identify yourself and then you may make your statement. A yes manager thank you for letting me speak my name's Kelly would I am the daughter in law of deviously Allen would who is the deceased. Or if you'd like to tell us why you're here today in your story yes ma'am so are we received of my father in law as well in two thousand ten shortly after our son was born who is here today. And we never once thought to have the will look at look at our scrutinized or anything like that Intel it was too late in July of two thousand nineteen my father in law passed away from lung cancer which he actually contracted from this person that has ownership of his home now from smoking inside a everything was going smoothly we open the probate And then she she found out that she could take the house so she did to actually made the whole probate process more difficult whereas like what you know in the state of Arkansas even though for instance like is that personal property like his tools and trucks and stuff like that Arkansas state law we're already my husband's because she had possession of the home we had to sue her for those possessions which was like you know thousands of dollars And I just feel like the whole probate process would have gone a lot smoother and a lot quicker if there was an an amendment to this law I know for a fact that if my father line new by putting her on the deed a person he never married I never share an account with Never had any children with he he never would have done that if he if he knew by Arkansas state law you're not required to have a lawyer look over your will my father in law had a lawyer but he would never pay for anything he didn't have to his will was legal by Arkansas state law and and you know we thought that we were good Intel we weren't this is all that my father in law had to give us the but every sent into this home she paid every mortgage even though she lived there the utilities and then she does you know gets to take it and I just I just didn't think that was right so Jimmy Gazaway has been amazing with helping me with this amendment and I would love for it to pass. Represent Richmond you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair I'm over here right here. Now. Just a quick question is the the lady in possession she is not the mother of your husband no Sir okay thank you. Represent college you're recognized for a question. thank you I'm over here thank you for coming and telling your story also for bringing the bill I do know though that this is this would be a huge change for Arkansas I mean it would really it would kind of throw this state law and to act. It almost turned on its head and so I have a lot of concerns about doing this so rapidly so late in the session and I you know I don't want to speak out of turn but I might just suggest if we could have a bit more time to study this in an interim study I think that would be a better approach and I just wanted to throw that out obviously that's for represent Gazaway to decide but at least that would give the ball are some more time to absorb with this change would look like. Represent Richmond you're recognized for a question I'm sorry manager but the taking a look at this you know the unintended consequences of doing this that I would like to see something that would be more proactive you know some way that you look at the will look at the deed situation before somebody dies and make sure that and I don't know if this is possible and I'm not a lawyer thank goodness but the to look at this in some manner prefix you know basically be proactive instead of reactive on. Ballinger. Yes representative if I could address the representative Richmond there I agree with you in that and I think that would be miss woods contention is that. What happens many times in these cases I think in the case of her father in law is he made out a deed twenty years ago and then more toward the end of his life he went made out a will and not knowing that when he made out that will that it would not supersede the deed that he made out twenty years earlier and in unless you have an attorney who specifically advising you of those things many people find themselves unaware and I think you know miss wood feels like along with her husband that her father in law's final wishes were not actually carried out and that should be the whole intent and purpose of the will and so to your point you know one of the things to to look at is you know how can we make sure that people are making informed decisions when they're making wills in the making out deeds and I think that was one of the biggest concerns if I have that correct exactly. Per se Smith you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair. Questions for a representative Gazaway is this a fairly common problem in the state of Arkansas when it comes to deeds verses will. You know it's I think it's hard for me to say exactly how often this happens I mean clearly you know that the situation is right and I think you know the scenario has been described as one where you have a pretty bad result a lot of times these things you know deeds are consistent with someone's will and you don't have these types of issues arise but this is kind of a unique situation I think Senator sure that they had But but I do think that it could probably benefits from some more clarity for people with so that they understand when they make out a will how that's affecting the disposition of the property K. follow up you're recognized for miss would. How many years did your father in law. Cohabitating. Live with this. One of before his death and nineteen years nineteen years okay. Can I address your questions your that so in my in you know when I was going through this I talked to you know maybe five different lawyers all you know experts in you know probate and wills and they did per trade to me that this is a very common thing that happens and everyone but except you know Bragg Broadway that advising it would you know I should go to Jimmy Gazaway trade changes the other one just said you know this happens all the time and that's just the way that is and you know I was just brought up to believe that laws are supposed to protect us and if they don't we should try to change them. Seeing no other questions thank you miss would for your testimony thank you we have an individual who signed up to speak against the bill Lynn foster foster. Thank you didn't by yourself you may proceed. My name is Lynn foster I'm a retired law professor at UA little rock and the current chair of the Arkansas bar associations legislation committee. And I'm here today representing the Arkansas Bar Association to testify against this bill. Sure Dalby and representatives thank you for this opportunity to speak today. There will always be problems like this as long as we have multiple instruments by which people can transfer property at death In this case we have a will versus a beneficiary deed and the problem is that a beneficiary deed must be recorded before the death of the grant or. On the other hand a will need not be probated until five years after someone dies. A beneficiary deed is going to be filed in the property records and there it's available and visible to anyone who searches for it. But will can be kept secret and often times is kept secret and there's no problem with that that's perfectly fine under the law. So let's say that this bill becomes law. And in twenty twenty two a father records a beneficiary deed leaving his home to his daughter. Anyone who searches the title records will know about the beneficiary deed sitting there. Let's say the father dies in twenty twenty four he executed a will leaving the home to his nephew but let's also say that no one can find will people may not even be aware of the existence of the will. A court can accept this will for probate as late as twenty twenty nine five years after the death of the father meanwhile what will the daughter be able to do with the house during that five year period. We call the quality of her legal ownership her title and her title is going to be very uncertain it's going to be unmarketable basically no one will want to buy the house until five years have passed because of the possibility that there is a will out there that could be found even if there is a will our law also provides that if a second validly executed will is later found that will will supersede the first one and that leads to sometimes probate estates being re opened and estates being redistributed. So this bill if it's passed will create a huge problem with real estate titles Even if there were a buyer no reputable title company will want to ensure title she wouldn't be able to get a loan to remodel it because the bank won't want to land on the basis of such uncertain title. I'd like to quote from the comments to the uniform transfer on death act our law pre predates the uniform law but they are very similar they work exactly the same way. Quote there is a sound reason for the rule that a beneficiary deed may not be revoked by a subsequent will a beneficiary deed operates on real property for which certainty of title is essential this certainty would be difficult and in many cases impossible to achieve if an off record instrument such as the grantors will could revoke a recorded beneficiary deed. If this bill becomes law it will defeat the usefulness of beneficiary deeds as a state planning tools and they are popular estate planning tools because they allow real property to pass outside of probate. Beneficiary deeds are used by many people to pass the real estate at death outside of probate this bill will add uncertainty and heightened the potential for litigation over who owns what when people die and the Arkansas Bar Association respectfully asks that you vote no on house bill nineteen forty thank you. All members are there any questions. See no questions thank you professor for coming today. We have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representative Gazaway you're recognized. Thank you madam chair of a committee and I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed by a professor foster those are real and legitimate concerns but I think likewise you know the real concerns about people being able to pass on their property in the manner that they wish to do so and many times that's indicated in a will and it's done closer to the end of life and we ought to give effect to the wishes of. Someone when they clearly indicate what their wishes are Let you know later in life through through will and I think you know that's what this bill does it again this is meant to give more Right. More credence to the will. and desires of a person to pass on their property as they state in their will which would be a place where we would expect someone to state how they wish to dispose of the property so I understand the objections I think she made some good points And so with whatever the will of the committee as I'm I'm happy to entertain that. But I would make a motion to pass. Members we have a motion to do pass represent because you can ask a question at this point not a question I have a substitute motion. okay let's hear you substitute motion to where the bill on the table. Madam chair. Yes is is that motion debatable. What it is okay. Upstate why you're wanting to lay the. Bill on the table just like you will have more time for us to be able to discuss this is to be a major change a law I think there were some important points right up against it and and I hate to rush something through like this they can have some really serious consequences don't know that we need to take up or down vote necessarily but I think a little bit more discussion might be helpful. Members any other discussion on the substitute motion the substitute motion is to lay the bill on the table. That is a proper motion. Ballinger before we vote on that if I could have the opportunity what may be best because some of the concerns have been raised as to permit just pull it down and and look at an interim study I'm seeing some committee members secretary had about that right members we have now to motions on the floor. And we're looks like we're going for three do I hear and I'm being silly okay let's let's start from the beginning and see if we can get this in the right parliamentary procedure represent Gazaway are you willing to Of. Searching for my word are you willing to re send your original motion do pass. Yes okay represent Collins are you willing to rescind your motion to lay on the table. Right now then we have the one motion and members is there any opposition. Referred to represent Gazaway. Of rescinding is motion. Seeing no opposition that will be rescinded. Are we in the opposition to representative Collins. Seeing none that will be allowed so now then representative Gazaway let's take up your motion that you have just may. With members permission I'd like to pull this down discuss it a little bit more You know possibly submitted an interim study. Because I think there were some legitimate concerns expressed by the Bar Association we will get this right it would be a major changed Arkansas law I'm. Little concern by the looks of this committee that might not pass by submitted for a vote but I think this is probably the best alternative. Members you have heard represent gas wage request to pull this bill down and to place it in interim study is there any objection. Without objection we will allow that to happen we will place your bill into interim study. Thank you manager thank you Chris. Represent very I'm sorry have your light lit up we're coming through that you have something coming on with grow more questions okay thank. Represent Gazaway we have you down it House Bill eighteen eighty five. Members let's turn to House Bill eighteen eighty five there is a fiscal. Assessment impact assessment should be on your desk represent guess what you're recognized thank you madam chair this is a bill that as house bill eighteen eighty five that comes to me from a constituent. And I filed this on her behalf and I think this is something that we need to consider it concerns parole eligibility for persons convicted of an offense that involved a moving violation I highway work zone. this particular constituent who contacted me about this issue had a son who I worked in a on a highway construction crew and of course there are many of these construction projects around the state we put up big orange signs there are a big orange barrels the line the highways we have people with flags who are out there manning these construction zone so that we can get our critical infrastructure built around the state and. Of what happens is and I'm sure many of you are aware. People will speed they want observe the rules the those construction zones are very dangerous areas and they're dangerous to the workers in those areas and so why I brought this bills because I had a constituent whose son was killed. while he was working in a construction zone. And she obviously Very concerned about how we protect our construction workers. In in those construction zones and so she asked me to look at the law about how we can stiffen the penalties for people who commit violations in construction zones that result and and so what this bill says is the result in serious physical injury or death to a person who is acting in the scope in course of their employment in a construction zone. And so serious physical injury in the criminal code is defined as things like if protracted disfigurement. you know that's those are long term injuries you know broken bones scarring things that that don't go away protracted disfigurement disability as a result of injury it's not not minor injuries but very major serious injuries that are long lasting or death and basically what the bill does is it says that if you cause serious physical injury or death to a construction worker who is working in a can highway construction zone. That you would have to do fifty percent of your the time that you're sentenced to before you would be eligible for parole. And you know this is a committee of these charges so for instance manslaughter so if you if someone was being driving recklessly in a construction zone and that is what that's the required mental state for manslaughter is recklessly which is a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur if you're acting recklessly in a construction zone and you cause someone's death that's manslaughter that's a C. felony that carries three to ten years in the Arkansas department of corrections and it's a one six the parole eligibility right now under current law and so what that means is even if you get the maximum. Under current law for manslaughter of ten years you're gonna be eligible for parole in about a year and a half and this would say if you're convicted of manslaughter in a construction zone involving a construction worker you have to do half of your time which means you have to serve five years. Now we're talking about causing someone's death here okay. So there's also negligent homicide felony negligent homicide but I think requires intoxication now that's a B. felony and that carries up to twenty years but once again that's a one six parole eligibility crime and so if you those are the types of moving violations that I would expect to see in a construction zone that causes death. A neck either negligent homicide or manslaughter and again those are currently one six parole eligibility this bill would take it up to have. Battery which typically requires some type of intentional conduct you're probably not gonna see that unless somebody intentionally runs over a highway constructions on worker but those are also lower parole eligibility is would raise the parole eligibility and make sure that people did more time if they were convicted of a battery offense in a in a construction zone. And so. You know I have a heart for my constituents and and all that she had to go through. And again that was the justification for this bill. That's I think I've explained it and I'm happy to answer any questions representative Clowney you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair and thank your president Gazaway I know that you're working hard on behalf of your constituents and I hate that any family had to live through this I guess my question for you is just as someone who's not super familiar with this particular issue. What can you tell me what other kinds of crimes have have you know that have sentence parole eligibility what would this would be analogous to our criminal code. Yeah that's a great question if the top of my head I can't think of any that have one half parole eligibility I know the prosecuting attorney's association is here they may be able to answer that right for instance is a seventy percent parole eligibility course we just passed a bill today that makes some one hundred percent parole eligibility. so again we're talking about some pretty serious conduct only the type of conduct that would result in serious physical injury or death. And then you're talking about one half parole eligibility in this instance but to answer specifically answer questions I can't recall off the top of my head other offenses that have one half parole eligibility follow. So you you I think anticipated my next question which is I think we were seeing a lot of these we're seeing more and more of his parole agent eligibility bills come before us and I guess my question is are we are we worried that were. I don't or we overstepping what we should be doing is legislative body here in it are we going to see more and more of these parole eligibility bills and do you worry that maybe we're going to far if not why not. Thank you make a good point up you know parole typically or or parole is really an administrative remedy the prisons use parole to incentivize good behavior on behalf of the prisoners here or there and also as a remedy to make room in the presence for from a prisoner sentence parole is typically you know in some some entered at the discretion of the director of the facility in the parole board with you know the right recommendations and considerations by the parole board but we do set up the policy we can set the the parameters on on what the parole eligibility will be for certain offenses that is within our. A legislative authority but certainly there is administrative component to parole that I think that we ought to consider as well thank you. The representative Scott you're recognized for a question. Can you make okay I'm do you know where the department of corrections the parole board actually stands on this bill. Anyway I haven't heard any opposition to this bill from them. So. I'm really not sure but I all I can tell you is that not heard any opposition okay thank you. Members any other questions. Seeing no other questions we have one individual who signed up to speak against the bill Mr Rosenzweig you're recognized from fort speak again. Jefferson's like Arkansas Association criminal defense lawyers represent Clowney hit on basically point I was making. We are running into if this bill passes we're running of creating a crazy quilt of different parole eligibility is based on special cases special leaders anecdotes from a constituent that that type of thing and if we we start here where do we stop and at some point it needs to it needs to stop and when we're dealing with an intentional conduct not purposeful conduct that is reckless or negligent I think this is probably a good place a good place to stop of certainly parole eligibility is not the same thing is getting out in my anecdotal experience for what it's worth if it has a if the word in the charges of battery or any sort of homicide they don't get out the first time hello oftentimes not even the second or even third. so this one six is eligibility but it is not what these people are in fact actually doing and I'm sure there's a probably an instance of that they can pull up some more from a that would contradict what I said but I think that's basically what is What is happening so. This center this bill would set a bad precedent and and it should be I would ask that you reject the bill and I'm happy to answer any questions. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions thank you Mr president for your system. We have no one else. For against the bill representative Gazaway you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you madam chair thank you Committee. I will say that in the discussion of how we should proceed with this bill there was a consideration of adding years to these types of offenses. And ultimately that was kind of determined that that's not an approach that we should take I know we've had this debate around several bills about should we increase prison terms as far as the to the number of years that are available for offenses or should we increase parole eligibility we as we know we've seen that with other bills and so as opposed to adding a additional years or or basically a sentence enhancement. Which is another alternative it was kind of decided on that we would take this approach with affecting prohibition eligibility I'm not saying that that's the right approach I will say that I do want to see justice for these families are construction zones are very dangerous places again they're marked for a reason and we know that people. You know people abuse that and they don't really observe the care that they should take and it's because people's death around the state I mean I wish I mean I would hate this I hate that this happened to anyone You know if this were an isolated incident with just my constituent. it might be one thing but these things have happened and and construction. Areas around the state and so I think there's justification for this bill whether this is the right approach or not I'm I can't say that I'm entirely sure but after consultation the legislatures this is the approach that we have at which is to affect parole eligibility. And so. With that I'll make a motion to pass. Members we have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion on the motion. Seeing no discussion all in favor say aye. Any posts I know. Of the nose haven't bills failed thank you manager thank you for Senator Ballinger. You're recognized members let's turn to Senate bill five seventy three we have already adopted the amendment from this morning so Sir Ballinger. What those copies should be on your desk but we've already adopted that so we don't need to take that up we can take the bill up as amended I'm not sure if I want to follow that. I'm not sure which is worse Trent Garner senior. But. All right so you guys are the debate back this kind of a debate has been going on for a long time I am I'm happy to answer any questions that there still are any questions remaining. but outside of that just hopefully that will I have a good vote. Members are there any discussion on the bill as amended. I mean not discussion any questions. I have no questions you're recognized to close for your bill we have no one else is signed up to speak for against we heard that this morning I think so you're recognized. I have nothing further and I'll let my a co sponsor dress. I would just ask for a motion to pass as amended. Members we have a motion to do pass as amended on the floor is there any discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it the motion carries congratulations you've passed your bill thank you mentor thank we've got two hands up. Representative Smith. Yes representative under would yes representative McCullough. No representative Hudson. No representative Collins No representative Richardson No representative Cooper yes representive Clowney No representative Slape. Yes representative Scott. Representative Scott. Representative Crawford yeah. Yes representative berry. Yes representative Gazaway. Yes representative Cavenaugh. Yes representative Richmond yes representative mix representative mix representative flowers. No representative Ferguson represented Ferguson. The Bill carries. Thank you mentor thank you at the chair of the committee. All right members to a little bit of housekeeping real quick so don't jump up. We've got five bills that have come to us that means we will have to be Thursday morning no we're going to get it done Thursday morning I hope unless they send some more bills out tomorrow that's a possibility that they could send some more bills out of but for the record and for the video in the event that something falls apart and we don't meet I would like for on the record to express our appreciation to Alison. And to Ashley who have been with us all session who provided great help we really appreciate all that they've done in front of us and behind the scenes and to keep this all straightened on task so members we please join me in thanking them. With that be prepared let's we're going to try for nine thirty again Thursday morning thirty minutes after budget but will try for nine thirty eight maybe ten o'clock with that have a great evening we are