Judiciary Committee- House

Right now we're going to concentrate on just House bills we have an hour and forty five minutes that we can be in this room because Joint Energy needs to come in for a meeting and we have to get out so they can get prepared so we will adjourn at eleven forty five and then we'll come back in after session and it since it is Thursday afternoon and we have people on this committee that live in the far reaches of the state it'll be our goal to try to get out by five o'clock so the child can get home if we don't get through all the House bills. This today they will be the first Bills on Tuesday so that we can get them out before noon so they can be read across the desk. And our whole attention to stay hopefully will be all judicial I mean all Senate bills there will be no more house bills that can possibly get through here and get out. So we've got to give the Senate their bills and if you are on the bill with the senator will will try if we get through the House bills today to get get those done but just want to kind of give you a heads up as to the plan and with that we're going to get started we have a concurrence and Senate amendments house bill ten ninety eight this representative wouldn't. You should have the concurrence on the desk representative would start here but representative Cavenaugh has indicated that. represent wouldn't you did get here. A representative what you're recognized. To identify yourself and present your concurrence members the concurrence is on your desk you're recognized. Thank you madam chairman. This is an amendment. Two ten ninety eight which you already have approved this man through the house of the Senate Judiciary Committee has for a change and it owns and to areas and in the interim since the bill was in here I have gone back and we have amended to where we're going to amend the sex offenders bill input another section in and this amendment simply continues to do the two things that I was most interested in one is protecting our children into this notifying parents of the that there is a that the owner proprietor lease any of a facility is married to a spouse who is a sex offender and has a record of of a public record of that and is required to register register on the sex offenders register and that's all this does is we took out the employees we modifies the bill was some concerns that Joel and when it was in here the you approved it will again we passed it to the house so this is at the request of the Senate Judiciary they voted on it and approved the bill on the bill passed in the Senate last week by a vote of thirty forty one so madam chairman of the habit answer any questions. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the concurrent represented what you're recognized to close. Well I would just appreciate a good vote colleagues we've worked hard on this to try the offense of everyone members represent what has closed for the concurrence we do have a motion to concur in the Senate amendment. We have that motion that motion is on the floors or any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no we have concurred congratulate thank you very much I appreciate. Members are next bill is house bill ten nineteen representing brought. Representive rai. Not seeing representing rival skip that when he comes in we'll pick it up at the end. Next bill is house bill eighteen seventy. House Bill eighteen seventy representative Pilkington. Not seeing representing Pilkington we'll pass that one and pick it up at the end if he comes in the next bill is house bill eighteen ninety seven representative Bryant you're recognized coming present your bill. Thank you madam chair. Committee this bill is a is results of an issue that may be a. My code a growing trend but maybe a concerning trend of. When is in one instance happens where A car accident occurs in the person that caused the accident is. Persoon or maybe a soon to be intoxicated or under the influence there's about a four hour window to it be able to obtain the evidence and if the person does not consent to it or is unconscious and can't consent to it the four hour window starts. Apparently there's some provisions in the law that that. We're concerning to the some administrations hospital ministration staff about protections about the ability to do this so when he sees thought to address this I thought about just you know maybe picking up a bigger stick and enforce a little bit of criminal liability on those positions hospitals this associations that deny this what I learned is is that wasn't the the proper approach. So when we look at the language we figured out that there's a few provisions in the current statute that that did need to have some concerns addressed so with that with the work of the hospital association thirty General's office state police and prosecutors Association what you have in front of you is new language within the statute that will address those concerns some of those concerns it removes removes the barrier causing refusal to the order by increasing the who can draw the blood. which will instead of just somebody ended with somebody that can bill and under the position supervision that is why is that birth to if you have the ability and state of Arkansas under license to do that you're allowed to do that it makes more clear the immunities of liability both criminally and civilly for the hospital or the staff that can do that. So that was the intent of the bill and I may not be able to answer all your questions but I've got plenty from those organizations here in the audience so can if you have questions. Represent Collins you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair representative you know we had a bill that came through this committee a little while ago dealing with this exact topic from state police if they didn't I mean come to you with this bill like they got what they wanted out of the other bill so obviously I'm I'm thinking they don't think it's unnecessary would what is the problem that you're trying to solve that made you feel like this was necessary in addition with state police saw. So when when the clock starts in the and the judges is woken up from a sleep or Is asked to provide you know with the evidence and they take that to there will. What I'm what I'm understanding is you know there's a difference in a court ordered a search warrant with the provision was a court order so that a search warrant there's potential reasons to deny The you know what if there's not a supervising physician available to do that and I got away and they got a pool pull them off a different situation. Where they just don't have the time to do it that clock is still counting down or would if the individual just flat out refuses and they got to go back and show cause to the to the to the judge whether refusal that for our window is still taking down. So that was that was the reason I thought maybe maybe initially we just go straight for if you refuse to assist under different bill that I filed that we just make it a committee Class seeded misdemeanor and the prosecutor could choose to go that route but that wasn't the answer I believe this is the answer because it addresses the hospital's concerns give them a broader authority to draw the blood and also makes more clear the immunity protections of it. Thank you and quick follow up or is there any opposition at this point that you're aware of no okay thanks. Members are there any other questions. Represent Richardson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair of representive it or any other states doing this to the level in which you've got it identified in the bill. That is I do not know thank you. Members any other questions. Seeing no further questions we have no one who signed up to speak for or represent you had sent are you wanting a question. Yes madam chair and I don't know if this for real or not and I see that that turning for state police is here can we ask her to weigh in on this. Yes. Mr clearer. Mr clearing your. Identify yourself for the record and then representative because and you have a question for me is required. Mary Claire McLaurin of the Arkansas state police. Represent cuts in Europe thank you I'm so we've we've gone back and forth on this issue a few times and so I just wanted you to kind of walk through for the benefit of everyone on the committee to let us know how the State Police feels about this new version of this bill. At State Police is very supportive of this bill this is a problem that has existed it is not exactly whether or not our officer officers or anyone has the authority to draw blood that is what we addressed in the other bill where we wanted to make it clear that consent was an acceptable An acceptable purpose to draw blood and this has been kind of a An issue that has arisen between different between different law enforcement agencies and different medical providers where depending on the The ownership or the guidance of the medical providers had gotten from their compliance lawyers and things like that they were often hesitant to draw blood they were interpreting certain Supreme Court decisions in a different way than we were and they really did not feel that they were protected enough by the current statutes and obviously as as representative Bryant did describe in the event of a fatality or serious bodily injury in an accident we are required to draw the blood of all the drivers and to get toxicology results from all the drivers and if you have So you know that something that's required. Of us but if we don't have a medical provider who will do it and you've got dissipating toxicology it's it's become a problem it's just become an issue we've all gone back and forth and we've tried in good faith to resolve it and representative brought filed a bill that would have criminalized the refusal to comply with that that court order that. Ordered the medical provider to draw the blood and I think none of us really wanted to get in that situation where you're siding nurses and doctors and things like that and so we all came together and and At B. I. organization represented Bryant Came up with a bill that gave us what we wanted so that hopefully the hospital association can educate their members to feel safe drawing blood when we get a search warrant for a court order order when we ask them to do so based on exigency comes into his or consent and they have the immunity that they've requested and that they feel like they need based on federal law there Medicaid regulations and civil liability on in the state. So that's what this is what we've come up with and the language was agreed upon with all the parties involved including the prosecutors. Members are there any other questions. Thank you appreciate your coming forward to testify this morning. Seeing no other questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill representative right you're recognized close for your bill I'm close manager. Members represented bride is close for his bill what are the wishes of the committee we have a motion to do pass on the floors during discussion on the motion to do pass. All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill. Represent Boyd you're recognized to present house bill nineteen hundred. Thank you madam chair and with your permission Senator Hester is gonna join me at the the table to help with presentation. I don't know it's kind if you when we have Senator Hester come on down. And with your permission I will begin with an amendment to house bill nineteen hundred okay hang on we got to get your amendment passed out. As the amendment you're recognized president Truman. Thank you madam chair this amendment just makes clear that the administrative office of the court shall report for any court the the use this case management software the following data in listed in the bill and with that's what it does and with that said I'd appreciate somebody you know Give us a motion membership for the explanation of the motion. I mean of the request we have a motion to adopt the amendment any discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed the ayes have it your amendment has been adopted you're now recognized to present your bill as amended. Thank you madam chair and so I just want to clarify on the front end before I handed over to Senator Hester to present the bill as amended that this is about transparency you know we've heard some things in the news in there's no attempt to to change the cash bail system or anything this is just we want this body the legislature to be able to understand what is happening in the cash bail system. Right a state senator mark Hester of members thank you for hearing this. Again just like a represent Boyd you said this is a bill about transparency and we all we all value the bill bond system right I mean if somebody gets arrested for something we want them to be able to go to work the next day or as quick as possible go back to their normal lives until they're convicted so that the system is very important for just basic justice and. United States in the state of Arkansas but as you start looking as we to be able to make good decisions we have to have good information so several years ago we started asking for good information on the bill bond system I mean you go meet with maybe the AOC and explain reasons why they don't have the information and so you leave there and you go maybe to the prosecutors and they say why they can't really do the information someone else has it so you go to the courts in the state when all the great reasons they can't do it to go to the county's next final great reasons they don't have it so they sent to the public defenders and explain why they can't do it any sooner saying like any spin you in circles and circles and circles this is information that we need so we finally decided we're just going to follow bill as narrow as possible this is if you use court direct a system that we have spent millions of dollars giving the AOC. If you use that system you will provide us basic bail bonds information so what we start hearing yesterday all here's all the great reasons we can't even use the system that we spent millions of taxpayer dollars for for software we can't provide you any information so what I started telling people so if you can't tell me you can point the finger so the finger yesterday was pointed at A. O. C. don't ask the courts have the AOC do it fine so now we have amendment in the house to ask AOC to provide it and I'm sure they're gonna come sit next to us and explain all the great reasons they can't provided. But at the at the end of the day we all have people sitting back in our districts. And representative necks like you've got somebody couldn't County it is sitting in jail because they're poor right if you've got money you bailing you get out somebody in Benton county sit in jail because they're poor somebody in Polk County sit in jail because they're poor and this isn't a reform this is just is that true we hear those informations I read stories about it is it true I don't know what we can get information then we can make good decisions so this bill is about us requiring someone to provide us any basic information on bail bonds information and what we know in government when no one wants to give you anything there's a problem. And no one wants to give us anything I've got a companion bill in the Senate this just requiring the you know that that the actual court to provide us in a report A. L. C. in the House would get this companion bill that we're now amending to provide as the AOC to do it so I look for all the great reasons they can continue to not provide a sense information of but at least I want to continue to have the discussion because it's important I think this is hyper by partisan you know I mean I think is important to everyone sitting in this room that we find a way to start getting this information so I'm happy to answer any questions. Represent Smith you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair thank you Senator Hester and representative Boyd. I just wanna ask. The question that I received from my District Court judge and a lot of his concerns you've already shared but In his it's his opinion that this would be your bill would put a lot of extra work on the staff of all District Court and that much of the information as you mention isn't available. To the District Court and their staff. And he cites how much of the bail was paid and what percentage of that was paid that is information between the defendant and the bail bondsmen and now he would have been here today to speak against your bill but he's on the bench this morning. So with that in mind. How how do you justify adding additional workload to staff and to the District Court and I know you're talking about transparency but when we increased these workloads. Is that fair to those that serve in our court system. That's a great question representative of Smith the that is why we said only the people that are using the the court you don't the software that we paid for provided to them so maybe I don't know how to run the report but I'm guessing someone using it knows how to run a report to give us any basic information on this so if if your district judges not using the software that we have paid for as taxpayers actually we didn't we put the burden on the poor people they're having fines we added an extra fine tune right and they pay this and pay this and we said once paid when the systems pay for we will continue but guess what shockingly the system was paid for and we continue to put this burden on the poorest of the poor that they're paying these fines so we've already paid for the system we pay for the software we provided to if we provided to me once in this report if they're not using the system they don't have to. Representative Smith I'd like to add that it's my understanding that it's in that. Administrative Hang on a second I got a look that up real quick. M. it's collected already in the Sentencing order sorry thank you. Thank you thank you madam chair. Represent Clowney you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair Senator Hester It I hear these concerns and maybe more work and I hear you saying it it may not be I guess my question is regardless of how much work this out I mean obviously there's a limit to it but can you talk a little bit about the flip side I mean what is the benefit of having this information be transparent and you know what good do you think that will do for our state because I think that they're important policy reasons to make this transparent even if it does add a little bit to workload. I think you know depending on what the information once we have it says right we don't know what the information would say but the information could possibly say that there are moms and dads in Washington County that are having to sit in jail for thirty or sixty days because they're poor right and when they're when they're sitting in jail they're not earning a living and we hear all of a and their families basically falling apart because they're sitting in jail and it may not be getting charged and more than that how often do we hear from our counties that that their jails are full and they're out of money at this is if this information is that we get says that we could help some of those people that we want to be able to do that I think it changes lives it helps it could turn around and help budgets and counties if just there are people sitting sitting in jail they don't need to be. Represent college you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so I I've heard rumors of inconsistencies in how bail is applied in certain counties Do we even have information at this point that would indicate whether or not that's true or not I mean or you with this help with that at all. I think that's a I think you hit kind of hit the nail on the head there yes we hear continue rumors of that but we don't have any facts to back that up and that and that's one of the things we just want to know and clearly you know we have different elected judges in different counties different like to prosecutor so things will be different but we wanted to be as fair as possible to all and the more data we have the better information we can have to make decisions. Members any other questions. We do have a couple of individuals who signed up to speak we have judge Martin here judge mark you're recognized come forward and speak against the bill. I'm chair members of the committee on Kristen Clarke is here from a of C. N. I would like to ask for permission for her to sit at the table as well she has signed up to speak against it miss Clark. You're the only two who signed up to speak miss Clark you want to come for that may be of help with our time. Because ms Clark does represent a see if it's permissible but we hear from her first madam chair of the firemen are on you're recognized. Hit that button again to light turns red. There we go. Madam chairman my name is Kristen Clarke I served as the director of legal services for the administrative office of the courts I'm here today to answer any questions and to provide information for the committee regarding the Bill that a transparency bill. A. O. C. isn't necessarily opposed to transparency in providing the data the issue here is that we want to share with you all the concerns that we have about the quality of the data that would be gathered with the current system and the way the bill as currently written at we can absolutely provide fields in our context program for someone to ensure the data that is being requested the problem is. That AOC doesn't hold the data so as Senator Hester and representative Boyd have already shared with you all. There are several other entities that are going to hold the status who would be responsible for doing that that injury I understand that with the amendment that you all or had trying to require AOC to provide it we can only provide what we have and at that point it would be very little of what is being required most of the data is going to be held by bondsman as representative Smith's question. Stated. Bondsmen and defendants have contracts with each other and that has to do with how those bonds are paid you may a judge may order a ten thousand dollar cash or commercial bond and that means that it can be satisfied with either a ten thousand dollar cash payment or a ten percent commercial bond payment should be a thousand dollars so although we may think that a thousand dollars is what's being paid in order to bond out of jail what we know is that many times those bonds and will actually enter into an agreement with the defendant and put them on some cost of installment payment plan and so that's not data that AOC has occasionally that's not even data that the sheriff's office would have that's data that the bondsman would have they're not currently users of the context system and so that some of that information would be problematic some of the information is going to be held by the sheriff's office some of the information would be held by prosecutors and somebody district judges and clerks and some by circuit judges and clerks but again I had to address the point that was raised earlier about courts that are not on context Even those who are not on context are not gonna have access to all the data I mean it's really not are you one context or are you not on context issue it's that the courts themselves in a our state see we don't have all this data just fire sales one of the other issues that was addressed was the sentencing order and that there's I believe that all of the data that's being requested is contained in the sentencing order and that's not accurate I actually pulled up the sentencing order I've just to look at it make sure that I was correct before I made this assertion to you all but you have to understand where you are in the phase a sentencing order is done after there's been a conviction it's post trial. When we're talking about bill this is all in the pre trial stage in so many times there may not actually be charges that are resulting from that once someone is arrested and and a bill decision has made the prosecutor still has to make a charging decision so there are cases where there are ultimately they're never charges and people are released once that charging decisions made and so again to say that everything. That is being asked to be collected as containing a sentencing order that's way down the road and so it's not necessarily going to be informative for for that information to be keyed in about this either. and less there are questions those are the main data quality concerns that AOC has that we want to bring to the committee but again we can only provide what we have and currently we don't have the data and even if with the amendment were ordered to provide it you know which we would be happy to do it's dependent on someone actually entering that data into our our system. Miss Clark we do have a couple questions representing Richardson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair so the thank you guys for being here this morning but the the AOC skews me. You currently use the system that Senator Hester it talked about that's currently there for you to use correct so the context system is is the system that we maintain its they're for the courts across the state to use and then we also have those data exchanges with other state agencies that you all hear about regularly as well so chooses to recognize for a follow up so when a person is brought in and their bailed out do you not keep record of them getting bailed out in that system or in a system AOC doesn't keep a record of that and we don't enter that data when someone is arrested in their build out that information is going to be held by. And on he's done the bond hearing and there's this is what were this is what makes it complex and while all the people who are stakeholders need to be in the room to discuss it but for example your bill tentative sheriff's department so the sheriff is going to have some of this data the sheriff is going to be making arrangements for a judge to come and do a bond hearing for you and set the bond so the judge will be making a decision based on the information that's presented there many times that judge is going to then take that information and give it to his Clark or her Clark and then make sure that it also gets transmitted to the circuit Clerk as well because at that point charging decisions haven't been made that charge may go away that charge may be amended it may be charged as a felony which would mean it would be in the circuit court as opposed to a District Court so there's just a lot of moving parts at that point and there's not a a case because there hasn't been a charge yet the case hasn't actually been created in the context system. So that's again another one of the things that's problematic about about trying to provide the data so proposed sorry one more. One more so a person could actually be in jail for two or three days going through this process and nobody keeps track of what's happening because it's so many moving pieces well I think that the sheriff's department ultimately is keeping track at that point you know they are tasked with the responsibility constitutionally of making sure that someone who's been arrested is brought before judicial officer within the constitutional time requirements if we know that with an arrest warrant okay you know there's a difference between a warrantless arrest and one that's with the warrant but in any event it's going to be within forty eight to seventy two hours that someone will come before judicial officer thank you at that point that's all held by the sheriff's office. Collins you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair I have you all quantified or is anyone quantify the amount of time it takes to get the information into the sentencing order has a staff time now we don't have that information now the judge Martin is here and she can probably speak to to that question her court is actually a court that doesn't excellent job of trying to gather the data for us and they are a court that's on contact with just a quick follow up on you know the sentencing order instructions that I have a seven single spaced pages of information is quite a bit of information absolutely and the fact that that that doesn't even sort of rate as needing to be quantified as a line item and and budgets makes me think that that it may be a little overblown that the amount of cost we're talking about and staff time of adding the contents of this bill which is really just a few items I understand that the more cases but you know if there feels created in the the software which it seems like it would be a manageable thing to do to be able to input data as well as in putting other things I'm just yeah I struggle to understand why it would take so much money in terms of wasted staff time or not and not wasted staff time useful staff time for incredibly useful result but even lost staff time so help me understand why this particular data entry would be so much more. Costly hunters than all of this huge amount of data and right and so AOC can't speak to the issue of the staff time that would be required of prosecutors or the public defender's office or the sheriff's office or the court clerks I mean we're telling you that we can provide fields for the data to be entered into that's not an issue for us to do that in context of AOC can't speak to the staff time issue just because it's not our staff that would be doing the data entry it's a variety of other entities staff that would be doing it so we wouldn't have that information but judge Martin may be able to speak to it. Judge Martin do you want to take a stab at answering sure the columns motion good morning madam chair representative Collins the members of the committee regarding that one question in the additional labor and resources let me start out by saying that transparency is always a good thing. Arts want to be transparent courts want to provide the information at this point with the way that the a or C. system is set up and with Little Rock criminal court of course part of the case management system at this point it would be a manual pull of every defendant in other words you have to look at the case history of a defendant from start to finish and I can give some other comments on that here later if you'd like but that's to be manual entry by court staff member and because we don't have the ability or the courts now don't monitor when a defendant bonds out the court that monitor any kind of contractual liability obligations between the defendant and the bonds when the court has. No way to know when a defendant bonds out and I have some other some other concerns about this I hope that answers your question but at least on the port side it will be at this point a manual review also regarding the sentencing orders those are normally as you know of felony convictions so that's at the circuit court level there are not normally on at least my court sentencing orders entered at the time that is a felony matter not District Court so by looking at only sentencing orders again the data to be skewed I think because you're not going to get perhaps the information that you need. And I have more to say but I'll let. If there's any other questions okay I answer that correctly Christmas. Represent Cavenaugh you're recognized for a question thank you madam chairman over here my question is just from a layman. And deals with that all day long and her business when I start a record. I don't care where that record goes into my other parts of my business or other related businesses that data exist. Are you telling me that when someone is initially set with bail. Whether it's done and county level share of doesn't matter where it's done. Are you telling me that we don't keep a history so we know what's going on with these defendants that we don't have a history that anybody can pull up and say that this person was arrested on this date they said this long in jail before they had a hearing for their bail and then when they had the bail it was this amount of money and it was cash or it was not we don't keep that data going doesn't matter where it started yeah I don't have access to it. One. Well I can I can what I can tell you is that that data is not currently being entered into context by whoever has it whether it's the sheriff's office or court or I bonds men again we can provide the data fields for it to be entered but that that is not currently interred in context follow up manager. You're recognized okay so you answered my question we have the data we just don't enter it someone has the data again I just wanna be clear A. O. C. doesn't have that data someone has the data and it may exist in a paper form they may be entering it into a separate system that doesn't communicate with contacts I don't know because each of the sheriff's offices are are they operate a little differently but again we don't have that data but they should have that data even if it's in a paper form one more follow up manager you're recognized for one more follow up so if you added that a field can they not at these other locations where the data is followed enter it into the system. That would depend on whether or not they're going to have access to what we call internal court connect and the security access that they have and whether or not they would would enter the data. You know again we can we can provide the data field and again our concerns are not to say that we can't do this it's to let you all know that we have concerns about the quality of the data that you will not receive back. So yes they could absolutely enter that data if they chose to. Follow up on that. And here. I am gonna tell you for example if you're arrested in Little Rock. a criminal offense yesterday your case is going to be entered into a court connect about six o'clock six thirty this morning and that's done by my staff my staff comes in and enters any arrest by little rock police into the system and alarm as because we want the public to see who's in jail and if you have a son or daughter in jail and you want to pull up that that history what happened yesterday you can do so the case history is cap line by line in our system so if you had some defendant's name and want to see the full case history line by line with court date appearances the bonnet was set later on down the line independent force would would. Post Monterrosa case would be moving on other speedy trial concerns within a year your felony cases that the defendants held in custody pursuant to rule eight point six that case has to be filed in circuit court or defend it can be released on a war if the state does not have good cause so yes on our end that information is there and public under a if you public court connect but if I went in on in any event you saw with the some thank. Fifty five hundred to six thousand attendance I see year all that information from a publicly available So I hope that answers that question. Represent Clowney you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair so I'm hearing a lot about little bits of information in lots of different places and knowing very little about this area can you just tell me what data on bail could AOC provide. I mean again there's very little that's actually being entered at this point so if you ask us to do a pool or to run a report For example on the little rock District Court for the traffic court because I'm sorry for the criminal division the three judge Martin presides that's one division out of all the district courts that are in Pulaski County her Clark's provide that data but they are the exception so if we pulled a report for you today on that it would be entirely whatever her court is entering and so that's why I'm saying it if the data quality is going to be the issue it's not going to be all the courts it's not going to be even all the charges and so we're we're just going to be able to provide on that report whatever someone else's entered. Follows. You're recognized for a follow up. So I eat it just would have. If there's a way to coordinate with other states you're talking about data exchange programs with other states is there not some way to do that with in our state with the bail bondsmen or whoever it is that actually has the status so that we can make it available I mean it seems like I know I know this is sort of what representative Cavenaugh just ask but it seems like there needs to be some way to get everything in one place is there not a possibility for something like that so when I referred earlier to the data exchange agreements those or data exchange agreements we have with other state agencies like the state police like driver services those top of exchange because we're sharing that information there's currently not any type of data exchange with the bondsman because they're not that's a private or private now they do have a state licensing board but there's not currently that that data exchange there doesn't mean that there could be something developed but that is not something that we currently have although again we're more than happy to do our part in the and to provide the fields for the data that you all want to be collected to be entered it's just that it's going to require those people to do the data entry. Represents like you're recognized. Thank you madam chair judge of the all of you a little background in after being shared from running the jail for a while but when you get down to it there's two entities that knows upon the it which is a sheriff in the bonds. Unknown website that I had it had the date of the wrist the man of the ball on the charges and release date or if the issue still in custody and the bondsman moved because they wanna make sure that person showed up to court because the court insurers can be really upset if they have to go look for that person so. With the context and the others up I found out my personal experiences more people enters data more because we have the worst Brotha gets at the end because our several mistakes it's been made during the that wouldn't be in the share some of bondsmen are going to be mad at me on this but it would not only be put placed on the those two entities referred to get the data a lot of has websites that they could collect and turn over for valuation do you agree. Representive Slape that the as you know being a former sheriff Wheatley back up to that numerous defendants as I talk about the other day or side and so that that at least in plasti is a jail type position the ranking officer on duty one thing that a that jumps out at me about this bill is there's no provisions here for citations so you're gonna have some skewed data here that makes sense on a you know how this works but you have people who are released by the authority of the sheriff during the night maybe buying agreement between the prosecuting attorney and sheriff I don't see in this bill here where and of course ms Clark talked about these other entities a sheriff's the DA's and the defenders as well as as well as a county I see nothing in this bill here that accounts for citations that may be made by the sheer. During the night as miss Clark said we see people very quickly and many defendants are released in Pulaski on lower level felonies without having to post a bond and so that information at least to my knowledge is not available at least that data is available. I've never seen that but of course like at like I'm saying I think this this data this bill in its current form is going to be skewed and it's not going to give you what you want. Right now which I believe is accurate reporting of a bond from beginning until the end and so that a. To my concern that answer your question thank you ma'am follow up you're recognized for a follow up the judges you make real good point on citation own recognizance is because there's no place in the context to be able to provide that information correct you know you can go into context report connected connected course if law enforcement sided perhaps on the out on the street as we say shoplifting public intoxication really conduct And ideally that is entered in in that case and the court connect sorry but the problem that you have and I'll focus again on on the bill as as presented there's no accounting for any citations or there's no accounting for of arses we column on your on your own connaissance there's no there's no there's nothing in this bill that I think it's so important to have that information as well you want the information and I know you we want to comply with what the legislature wants us to do but if you do want to accurate overview of the bond system in Arkansas citations need to be included in this bill as well or reconnaissance on so you know I'm I'm focusing in here little bit about their the content of the bond that. Thank you judge thank you madam chair. Represent flowers you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair I guess I want to piggy back off of the exchange that I was listening to with represent Cavenaugh and I've heard you mention that the information exists somewhere on paper. And I just wanted to clarify. I heard Senator Hester earlier mention the money that's been invested in a system that can be used to collect this data. Does the information exist electronically somewhere even if it's in several places and it's a matter of sort of coagulating The information that sort of out there or is it that. It doesn't exist electronically. So as representative Slape has pointed out. The how the sheriff's office in the seventy five counties hold this data right and how the bondsman hold the data is going to be probably different depending on which county you're in and I don't have that information as to how they do it I could speak to some specifics of the counties where I practice law and and where I was the district judge for a while and how those particular counties do it but I suspect that that's not going to be Consistent with what's done across the state. Follow up manager you're recognized so then I'm wondering it sounds like. The judge Martin is an example of how this could be done with a few tweaks. that I don't know has to be. Enumerated so specifically in the letter of the bill per se but It sounds like. The information is out there and it's done very differently in different counties. But for the very purpose of the bill in the purpose of transparency would you agree that. This bill really with resolved that problem it it's because it's done so differently in other counties and information is sort of out there electronically in and and on paper that we would need to do this. So I mean this bill is focused on AOC and so again we're willing to do our part we can provide that the fields for someone to do the data entry I think the issue though is is it doesn't direct the folks who actually have the data to do the data entry and AOC doesn't have any type of enforcement mechanism to make someone to do it for us has also been mentioned you know the number of times the data gets entered a quarter times there are data quality issues and there's errors and we don't I mean again we don't have the ability to to force them to either review it or to enter it or to do it accurately so that's the one of the problems that we're pointing out what the bill is just that this is going to have is the data is going to be limited and you know they're gonna be some data quality issues there what one final all of that you're recognized thank you so much so then just to get clarification you're not necessarily against. The concept of the bill you're not against the bill your you that sounds like what you're saying is in order for it to be done. We need some authority there might need either to to even be some further direction of other agencies so that you can do this effectively. Right I mean we're providing the system the system is in place it it's a matter of the folks who do hold the data entering it into the system and so this bill doesn't actually identify who those individuals are who are holding the various pieces of data that you all would like to see and it doesn't direct them to do anything either. So again for for it from a sees perspective I mean again we're not opposed to the bill yes I'm providing information in the sense to help you will make a better decision about is the bill in its current form the way that you all should go about gathering the data that you want great thank you so much. President had said you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair and I'm not sure if either one of you would be able to answer this or not but I'm gonna throw it out do we have any data or information on how other states are and accumulating this type of data or if they're accumulating it and how any any information on that at all. The first I'm not aware may be but at least as to the bail information I'm not aware of reporting that. So I'm not aware either of at the national center for state courts is an entity that we can look to and probably quickly gather that information for you representative Hudson thank. Members any other questions. The weather I'm sorry impermeable to say just a little bit more about the bill madam chair sure go ahead I'll write you and vice information from the actual working in the court system that may be right and I apologize for interrupting madam chair but I thought it would be and I know exactly what was this Clark is saying and you know again transparency is a wonderful thing and that's what we all want and we want to be we want to give the legislature accurate information And of course this only applied to those courts the use cases that the case management system up there other courts that don't then you're not going to get reporting from from those courts I want to run through this I know one thing in the bill was most serious charge a defendant is currently facing that may be able to be a cold again I like I said before about the citations which to provide an overall in good view of our bail bond system here it's necessary to have those citations in which may be provided by another agency the percentage of the bail amount they just jumped out of the year the total amount of cash tendered again that's a contractual obligation between the defendant and the bondsman. So bonds and so that's not gonna be information this can be readily available to the courts and there's there's no agreement again between I you know I don't go into it and how much a defendant paid for the percentage of that of that bond that's between the bondsman in the defendant of the current length of defendant's pre trial the tent the detention of a mentions something quickly and those of you all you have to you have experience in the courts and you know the court you know cases a process and you have the arrest date and then you move through a process here of a bond is set weekly defendants in jail the the part about when a defendant of bonds that cases that date there's not a trigger date for that to know all my gosh you know Melanie Martin posted bond today so there's not there's not notifications up from our current system that would allow us to pool that data at this time any subsequent bail modification as you know in felony courts you when a case gets to circuit court you know my question is a circuit judge many times adjusted von and or or lowers Bond during that time that's not information available to us especially on a felony cases that that run through defendant's within outstanding worn again I'm focusing on the content of the bill at this time not the intent which I think is very good the numbers of defendants who fail to peer aw we don't have a current you talk about the numbers on on current failure to appear warrants of and then the number of defendants who re offend who re offended while on bail and have an outstanding warrant for their arrest or are subject to pending motion revoke ballot Page two line two of what is re offense you know what what may be re offending to you. Is not responding say to the public defender or the court so I think that word right there is you know what they're needs to be some kind of definition there to what is reoffending and there's not necessarily any decisions Esteban until you have a hearing on a motion to revoke bond so then also looking to other counties there's no way that as of or we could know what other warrants are pending in other counties to give you accurate data I want to I want to go into that a little bit not was the problems that I saw in the content of the bill at this time again with the purpose of being transparent open to anyone that wants to look at this time the the the the nature of the bills what jumped out. Right it took so long. Thank you you pick some interest so representive Underwood you're recognized for a question thank you mention okay thank you to. Represents like you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair miss Clark is there any way that the bondsman could internet access to get the program to enter that the. I mean right now they are not currently Court connect internal court connect users and I have my concerns about that because they are not a state agency and right now you have to be someone who you know is a government entity to have access to that particular system so I have my concerns about that but I would have to defer that question to either the division director Tim hold off about that and how that could be done if that can be done hi and of course Marty Sullivan the director of the agency I can absolutely brought that down and see what we can do thank you ma'am thank you manager. Representative Scott you're recognized for a question I was just wondering if the bill one Borki coordinate some of this information. I mean I think they could. I mean that's part of what they're charged with doing is overseeing the professional bondsmen and so they may be a natural entity for you all to look to in order to get the information thank you represent Scott amendment may follow up with that as you know I believe there there are. Current reporting being done there between the bondsmen and also the licensing board because there's fees come out of that when a when a bond is posted or fees that are deposited in the for the licensing board and also other domestic violence or whatnot if a person makes a bond. Again concerns on a state bonds and not being state agencies and you're getting and internal court connect you do always have a danger that things that maybe under seal juvenile information or things that have been are not publicly accessible and you know you have a concern of an outside non governmental agencies being able to access and internal or connect sorry for things that are. Remain private and under seal at that time. Representative Richardson you're recognized for a question thank you meditate so just for my clarity what exactly is the role of a C.. So statutorily we're in the state agency that basically supports the court system within the state of Arkansas and so that ranges from the Supreme Court to the court of appeals to all the circuit courts in the state to the District Court and we're made up of multiple divisions there's the finance in the administration Division there's the legal services division I'm the chairman or off the chairman of the director of that within my division we are tasked with providing staff attorneys to assist and support the courts and not just the courts that you all when you have questions and other local governments and basically all of our our partners here not only do we do that we provide the interpretive services to courts whether that is someone who has a limited English proficiency or whether or not they're of a hearing impaired my division also has the alternative dispute resolution services there we also provide judicial education in the specialty court's we also have the computer information services division which is the basically the I. T. division and they're the Division this tasked with supporting a context and also all the interfaces that are existing between the state agencies that we have the exchange agreements with I cannot even begin to tell you all of the things that and that's fine and that's fine I think you kind of got to where I was going so we so you do have IT in support is part of that right so correct okay thank you. The representative had said you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair and I am mostly civil user context so this is a question for my for my own edification on the criminal side I know over the past years as we've been costs what now ten twelve years that we've been rolling this out and over time that some counties and some courts were not using context and that has been sort of an ongoing process to get everyone online so when we look at this amendment where it says that AOC is going shall report and for any court that uses case management software R. eight. It to me And are there still courts that are using software that's not reporting into the larger system. So yes all of the circuit courts are currently on context for the most part it's or district courts that we only have a few of those in it's the larger courts that we do have and those transitions continue but there are many many district courts out there that are not on context you're using other types of software that doesn't necessarily reporter talked to context follows I'm here you're recognized for a follow up and so I know that in some states there's a court model that uses sort of a unified court system where all the courts in the state are connected to each other and it my corrects that Arkansas system while we're becoming more interconnected would not be considered one of those unified court system models you are absolutely correct Arkansas is not a a unified court system thank you. Representative very you're recognized for a question. Good. Represent represent Scott you're recognized for a question yes just another follow up to the question I asked earlier so K. AOC not work with the bill funds board to gather this information to build this report they were asking for or is that just completely impossible is that what you are telling us today there's no way for us to get to the end goal I have suggestions for that right to I mean I think that can would we be willing to engage in conversations with them absolutely I mean again that's part of what we do is we have conversations and try to provide the information that anybody needs in order to to do that but ultimately can they connect EM to internal court connect where they have the ability to not only enter the data that's possibly alter data I don't know the answer to that but can I have a conversation or can someone from the agency have a conversation with them about the types of data that you're you're interested in gathering absolutely. Thank you. Members any other questions. With that thank you Jeff Martin thank you miss Clark for coming today representative Ford you're recognized to come in close for your bill. Madam chair thank you for the opportunity here and and present this bill and that was a very healthy debate and discussion and so basically this is what it boils down to the finger gets pointed here the finger gets pointed there nobody can do this but the fact of the matter is this the people of the administrative office of the courts they have the security clearance to collaborate with the other in entities and coordinate this report so it's two thousand twenty one if they really can't find in the data they can't collected or it is so onerous for them to collect it and give us the give this body a report that can be just as useful I mean so I'm asking that you Somebody give me a do pass motion and we move this this on so I'm say thank you members represent Boyd is close for his bill where the which. We have a motion to do pass as amended is there any discussion on the motion. Representative call and you're recognized for discussion. I promise I'll keep it brief but I just wanted to say I do support the bill I brought a similar version of this bill last session and to answer representative Hudson's question the other states doing is absolutely yes the bill that I brought was based on something Florida did I paired it way down Florida gets all kinds of information they have an incredible system that's available to the public it's all you know the tracks someone through the entire bill process all the way through to sentencing and beyond I appear that way down these guys paired my thing way down so this to me is just the start by and it's something that's been done in response to feedback that I've gotten about what's gonna be more manageable with more durable kind of the low hanging fruit so I think this is a really important start create these guys return. Any other discussion. Representative Hudson you're recognized. Thank you madam chair and I love the concept of the bill I do but I use a a C. everyday in my practice I understand that I do work on the civil side primarily but there are limits to how that software can be used and the reality is that there are other states that have an actual unified state system where all the courts are connected all the District Court circuit courts or whatever they're at their courts of initial jurisdiction or called in this state Arkansas is not one of them and so my concern is that when we change the language through this amendment that says the AOC shall report for any court that uses case management software that we are requiring a C. to create a record for courts that they're not getting information from and so we're asking them to do something that is literally impossible for them to do and the staff at AOC is excellent they are always very helpful to attorneys and always provide that when we need it and help when we need it but I think that this is just something that they are going to struggle with because they are essentially the provider of that the platform and so and they can put in these fields but it doesn't mean that they have access to the data that we are requiring them to put together based on this I'll be in on. They were saying no other discussion we have a motion on the floor all in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it motion carries you have passed your bill members were turning next to House Bill fifteen NO eight representative brown are you here. Members there's an amendment on this bill that we passed out there's also a fiscal impact statement. On your desk so you might want to take a look at the fiscal impact statement. What we're passing out The Amendment. Actually madam chair there were there's been two amendments since I was here last. Of the one it's being passed out now what's up oversight I caught this morning. The one we have passed announce on page six line twenty five delete an injury and substitute physical injury is that the one you're referring to yes ma'am and you say there's another amendment well. This is Amendment number four I of the others been engrossed representative they've been engrossed okay so we have those in the bill. I believe everyone has the amendment represent brand you're recognized present your amendment thank you madam chair the Amendment I noticed on page six line twenty five It's simply said injury and it should have said physical injury we were substituting are cleaning up that language and that was one instance that was messed members we have a motion to adopt the amendment I have a motion to adopt the amendment assuring discussion all in favor please say aye any opposed amendment has been adopted you're recognized to present your bill as amended. Thank you madam chair I think it what I want to say is that all the concerns that were raised by representative Collins and Mr swat Rosenzweig I believe I have addressed all those in collaboration with others including the cordon prosecuting attorneys coordinator of the prosecuting attorneys I think I have that title right anyway I thought it might be easier to review that those changes by simply telling you what was removed and then telling you what was the language it was changed okay so. So every instance in the original draft where increased penalties for individuals who reside in other states all of those increase penalties and and references there to have been removed. There is a lot of originally it the. Follows originally section to referred to The person knowingly causes physical contact with the first responder that a reasonable the court the language that a reasonable person would regard as extremely offensive or provocative including without limitation that language has been removed. Section two and three there were portions. In this right of there were portions okay section two nine one three There are portions that were removed that are covered by existing law so it was just redundant and needed to be removed at in particular of there was a reference in the original section three that if physical contact results in the death of a first responder with that would be covered by another section of code so that was remote. All of section six was removed because as covered by other code referring to unlawful possession of state property. And all of a section all of section eleven referring to disorderly conduct That was struck. And all of the original section fourteen was struck That referred to required hold on certain arrestees. Now the portions that were amended in the definitions As used in this chapter first responder means a law enforcement officer firefighter emergency medical provider or emergency management official this language was added who is acting within the scope or course of his or her employment. In the Bill that you have. The engrossed bill the section nine. H. seven. Lines five and six. The language in addition to any other sentence imposed under this section. That was added a. To the Class AA misdemeanor. And. Section ten. The only the only change that was made in that section remains I just wanted to call that to your attention that it is obstructing a highway or other public passage is a Class a misdemeanor that was changed in this legislation And then section eleven regarding investigation by the Attorney General no no change was made to that section but I believe in all places where it said I think it might have said bodily injury that has been changed to physical injury and wherever injury was referred to in this document it now says physical injury. Represent County you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair and thank represented brown I appreciate you making those changes and walking us through them I'm sort of in the same Revain has the changes you're just pointing out I'm looking at Page three lines six through ten. where it lays out that aggravated assault against a first responder is a Class C. felony and I'm wondering if you can explain how that interacts with code section five three to eleven which is a code to an existing code section about aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer that code section that exist talks about making a law enforcement officer come into contact with your saliva blood urine feces seminal fluid or other bodily fluid. The the penalty for aggravated assault under that section of code aggravated assault on a law enforcement officer is a Class D. felony or Class Y. and other search but but for that bodily fluid part is a Class D. felony so I guess I'm wondering how your bill that would make basically what sounds to me like the same thing a Class C. felony would interact with the existing code that would make that that hasn't that already is a Class D. felony. Well not being a criminal attorney I'm having difficulty at I under this colonel Bryant was here earlier maybe he can address that He's not here anymore thank you for that here I really do not know how to respond to your question thank you I don't know. Represent flowers you're recognized for a question. Thank you I'm just also looking at page three online. for. And since and I know that if it's under the context of assault against a first responder if. And then it says involves the use or display of a deadly weapon and certainly I am. Not in any way advocating for assault however I know that this is in response to what happened over the summer which what happened over the summer were largely peaceful protests which included and has before included people pro testing out with arms we've seen it before well before this summer many times and we saw it this summer and I guess. What I'm wondering is based on this language with this means that if say for example a municipal or capitol police were anticipating a protest and protesters show up. With arms but peaceful and not making threats not exercising any sort of violence. it wouldn't this language make them appearing. marching demonstrating. With arms Automatically assault according to this language well I am not an attorney but I'm going to answer I'm not away I know the best way I can I can yeah I think generally speaking if your weapon is holstered or concealed it's not displayed. Right follow follow up you're recognized. Right and you know the state of Arkansas we have some pretty permissive. Language around the ability ability for people to not have to conceal weapons to you I mean I've been to a number of stores were people of walked in You know with weapons holstered and I've also seen footage of protests where people have protested from different groups with weapons that may not of been holster but on their body that kind of thing it's still a display as long as it's not concealed it's still a display but still operates within accordance of our existing law in this seems like it would conflict with the laws that afford our Kansans to to have weapons that are not You know necessarily holstered in that manner but certainly not concealed. What I can say is that this entire bill has been reviewed by Secretary Jamie cook of the Arkansas department of public safety of the sheriff's association endorses sources that the chiefs of police and Dorset prosecuting attorneys have reviewed it and the AG has reviewed it I saw Colonel brunt here earlier he was going to be able to speak for me on behalf of the the folks are secretaries but. I cannot answer your question I'm I'm giving you a layman's item of opinion of what displaying is I would think if you're if you're holding you're gone you're pointing it or you're just wagging at around that's displaying it or you know if you if you if you're embracing your weapon that's one thing if it's holstered or urge tucked in your belt or or concealed it's not displayed. So unconcealed to you would mean displaying. No I mean it can be you can have it in a holster and and and and be exposed and that's unconcealed but displaying in my opinion which is not wouldn't hold up in a court of law my opinion is that displaying it would be having it in your hand or somehow not having it holstered thank you. Represent Gazaway you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair a representative brown to go back to. Some of the questions of rast earlier specifically by representative Clowney about why you made the distinction between aggravated assault on a first responder and then the statute she referenced aggravated assault. on a law enforcement officer I it isn't the reason that you made the distinction. Because in the aggravated assault report for law enforcement officer. the required intent is up and in result is only manifesting extreme indifference to personal hygiene or creating a potential for danger of infection and that's a D. felony and that would be for the law enforcement officer but in your bill it actually requires either serious physical injury to occur or attempted or restrict the actual strangulation or basically displaying a deadly weapon in the course of that conduct is that why you made the distinction between those two sections. Yes okay thank you. Represent Crawford you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair part of that was answered my question was who worked with you to create a you just set that up who's against this bill do you have any groups or organizations that have come out against us now thank you for that question representative Crawford I I diligently worked with Who are. I either was contacted by the sheriff's association or I reached out to these other of groups entities act the Attorney General's office and US secretary cooks office and the chiefs of police so they have all come on board with this bill. And I do not purport to be an expert in everything that law enforcement is an expert in but I have I. Crafted the language of addressed all the concerns or at a. Senate in the previous meeting and I still have their endorsement. Follow up thank you you're recognized for follow up so is anyone against this bill that you know of. No representative okay thank you thank you represent Hudson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair I want to go back to where representative flowers left off on page three and one for regarding the use or display of a deadly weapon and I'm thinking specifically about some of the peaceful demonstrations in favor of the second amendment in which people have their guns displayed and not holstered. And my concern is is that if you look at the the term display which is undefined in here in which you yourself said that you shouldn't be quoted as to what it meant don't you think that it runs the risk of having someone who say comes and it is standing in in favor of a second amendment protest having somebody you know try to charge them because they displayed their gun and it wasn't holstered. Well I think you have to read that in the context of the section here aggravated assault against first responder Hey a person commits aggravated assault against first responder yep and then there's items one and two and physical contact two is fiscal come. Item one is the person knowingly causes physical contact with the first responder by spitting throwing otherwise transferring bodily fluids pathogens or human waste on to the person of the first responder or by throwing an object such as a brick Rapala projectile are working local agent or explosive device that a reasonable person knows or should know could cause physical injury if the object struck the first responder and. And the physical contact results in serious physical injury to the first responder involves the use or display of a deadly weapon or involved strangulation attempted strangulation. Follow up madam chair. You're recognized for a follow up so it's your opinion that the term display which is at each you know you weren't sure of the definition one representative flowers ask you you don't think that the word display needs further definition and in the criminal code for this statute. I do not. Thank you. Represent college you're recognized. Thank you measure it and you may not be aware of this but in when representative Crawford asked if there's any opposition I believe the criminal defense attorneys are not supported by I still got a I got an email this morning from Jefferson's wife about this so I just didn't know if you have been in contact with them about any of this and if you knew he if he was okay or he's in he said he could not be here but do you know anything about where they stand on this. No I do not I did not contact Mr Rosenzweig I did not think it was necessary if I addressed all the concerns that he expressed in committee which I have done. Represent flowers you're recognized for a question. I was reserved for comments and motions. Members are there any other questions. Seeing no further questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill representative brown you're recognized close for your bill. I want to thank the committee and I appreciate the questions and I'll certainly. Tighten up my knowledge on what display means but. For the time being and with the endorsement of. No objections of. Approval of US secretary cook from the Arkansas department of public safety the sheriff's association Arkansas chiefs of police and the attorney general's office. I would appreciate a good vote. Members represented brown has closed for a bill what are the wishes of the committee. At. As amended we have a motion to do pass as amended is there any discussion on the motion representing flowers you're recognized for discussion thank you represent route I I'm one of first thank you and commend you for making those changes and being so responsive so I'm gonna put that out there and save honestly other than what I'm about to share I don't have a problem I'm very concerned though about that one area that I identified because it doesn't seem to me that those Different criteria for what amounts to assault. Our criteria that have to be on performed in total it the way I'm reading it it's you know one or two or three or four like that and so the line that I outlined it doesn't say use of its if it just said use of indeed say use up or display I would have a problem what concerns me is that you know we have a very clear. Broad wide open open carry law in Arkansas and I we've all seen examples of how people exercise that law in including in peaceful protest and demonstration right here on this capital we've also I don't know if everyone has seen I have seen plenty of examples of one group being allowed to exercise their open carry rights and nothing happens to them while someone else may do so and as a problem so now with language that basically says that displaying amounts to assault worries me greatly and when I go back and look at the definition of display because I appreciate your it's distinction when you say display is not the same as hosts or will neither one of us is a lawyer and I don't know what display means legal acts right to look it up but when I'm looking at right here display reads as a performance show or event intended for public entertainment an electronic device for the visual presentation of data but the verb display that was the now the bird display says make a prominent exhibition of something. In a place where it can be easily seen. Tell me if I'm exercising my open carry rights that is what that is and that seems to me to be not only a conflict but if it went into law I would be concerned about how will be carried out and so for only that reason I'm I'm in now thank you. Represent Richmond you're recognized for discussion thank you madam chair representative brown I'm represent flowers hit what I think is a very valid point in your bill concerning the the language displaying when you consider the open gun you know the open carry capability we have a. It's enough for I'm uncertain that I can vote for this bill it I think that if if you could strike the word displaying bring it back this afternoon that I would have no problem but I do think that it may be a little more in depth than that because I do believe that. There needs to be some type of language and I don't know at threatening manner or something like that because if somebody pulls a gun and points it at law enforcement. they cannot simply sit there and go well he hasn't used the. And so I don't know exactly what that language would be there's lots of lawyers for so many lawyers there's just tons a lawyer so we should be able to find someone saying it could help you with that and I know the last thing you want to do is is is go back and do some more work on this. But I think it would be helpful if if you consider that thank you after. Am I allowed to say anything but not yet you can I mean it and I can point out to you representative brown if you're interested in doing that you would have time to pull your bill down today and come back this afternoon we're going to make this afternoon if you would like to do that you're welcome to do that or we we can take a vote on it you can risk thank you madam chair I mean I'm not telling you to do that we have a couple more folks in the line for discussion and Act I think that and we have a motion so you know. We're kind of at the point of decision let me let representative Gazaway he has been in the queue for discussion representative Gazaway thank you madam chair and I just wanna thank representive brown for the work that she's done on this she's made some really good amendments that have made this bill a much better bill but I agree with everything that representative Richmond just said I think that one little phrase is problematic and I can't I mean I know I've been I've helped you work on it but the representative flowers made a great point I agree with representative Richmond you can bring that back with the minor amendment this afternoon I think you'll be in good shape that would just be my suggestion. Representative Collins you're recognized for discussion this is gonna say it probably is the difference between now and yes from me. Members I have no one else in the queue for discussion we have a motion on the floor to a job motion do pass as amended by representative Crawford. We can either take that motion up or represent Crawford can withdraw her motion if she so desires. Thank you madam chair I will read withdraw the motion the motion has been withdrawn now that we're back kind of at square one representative brown if you would like to our. All your bill down to make some changes we have an afternoon docket in it will go back to this afternoon I would sincerely appreciate being able to pull the building down and as a writer I want to be very specific as a technical writer I don't like ambiguous terms and with the consensus it seems in this group I really need to do a little work on this and appreciate representative flowers in Richmond and gas waste feed and Collins fade back and I've been mad I'd love to bring it back this afternoon members of representative brown has requested to pull her build down is there any opposition seeing no opposition the committee will allow you to do that and we'll put you back on the agenda for this afternoon thank you very much. All right members we are next bill. Is house bill eighteen ninety six representative Lowery not seen him this morning. We'll pass over that bill the next bill and we have about seven minutes but we do have the next bill is house bill eighteen ninety nine represent Collins I'm not sure that you can present your bill in seven minutes but you're more than welcome to try and then we can take a recess and we would pick back up with your bill right after we come back this afternoon but as I explained to the committee certainly as I explained to the committee earlier and to members in the audience we have another committee that needs to get into this room and so we're having to get out so they can prepare the room but with that representative Collins I know your bill is a fairly detailed bill but we will start on it It if you would like three yeah let's go ahead and start and you know if we need you to come back we can I'll try to keep it brief. so this bill eighteen ninety nine basically and and I'm an invite Paul Keith present the Arkansas Bar Association join me when he's ready this bill addresses dark money and appellate judicial elections dark money is a term that basically refers to spending in political races where we don't know anything about it we don't know who is paying for involvement and in campaigns there's no sunshine or transparency and it's in contrast to every other form of political spending which we're all familiar with which has to be transparent and documented so when a candidate when we run for election we have to say who gave us money and and where we spent the money over a certain threshold same with the pack and same with what's called an independent expenditure basically the idea with all that is you have to say who you are when you're engaging in trying to influence elections with transparency is come to count ability and that's exactly what dark money gets around. so the the difference in an independent expenditure in the dark money we're talking about is it an independent expenditure has to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate so when dark money comes into the race they're always careful to stop just short of expressly advocating election or defeat. that is kind of how they get around the disclosure requirements that an independent expenditure would have to meet that's the loophole the issue is that through that loophole comes millions and millions of dollars in unchecked accounted for mostly out of state special interest money and appellate judicial elections in particular that's the Supreme Court and the court of appeals rates just a statistic which is kind of stunning is that from two thousand fourteen to two thousand eighteen dark money spending on TV ads in these races was three million dollars compared to only one million spent by the campaigns themselves so it's just completely dominating the discourse the ads are often dishonest and misleading and again the main thing is we just don't know who these groups are whether they're credible whether they're not whether they're from Arkansas or DC or foreign interest or what and what they're trying to accomplish by effectively being able to buy these elections the issue really is most critical needs appellate judicial elections that's where we see most of the dark money coming in and that's why we've narrowly tailored tailored this bill to those elections. The idea is I think you know the judiciary's is unique and different from the legislative or executive branches those are political races the legislature has been in power the power of the purse the executive branch has the power of the sword which is enforcement but the judiciary derives all of its authority from public trust judges are or should be impartial nonpolitical committed to the solemn task of interpreting the law. And citizens have to be able to trust that that's the case so if the participants in the election or giving money or known and accountable our entire democracy stands to benefit and I believe it's as compelling an interest as any we have in the state. So as far as the mechanics of how it works it's it's long but it's actually fairly simple the bill defines the category of expenditures made in appellate judicial races that are called non candidate expenditures non candidate as distinct from independent expenditures it's just a totally separate category and then it requires the groups that make the non candidate expenditures to just identify who they are. so darn candidate expenditures again are are separate from and broader than in some ways it independent expenditures to close that loophole where the outside groups have been able to spend the money and in a way that's not technically expressly advocating for the election or defeat of a candidate so the definition of a non candidate expenditure really focuses around this idea of pertaining to a communication the names or provides a photograph or other image of a specific candidate or set of candidates within a hundred twenty days of election and is targeted to or otherwise expected to be received by a thousand more voters so I would consider that to be that I mean that is a definition that most of us would consider to be campaigning news articles are exempt they're not consider this intra organizational communications like between organization's leaders and its members or between member to member voter guides those are all things that are exempt they are not considered to be covered here that and then noticed closures required so there is a difference between this bill and what was brought forward last session there is a version of this bill the representative Gazaway brought ethics commission came in and had some issues with the organization and this is resolved those issues so that should not be an issue here this is done extensively with their cooperation ethics commission so groups are welcome to make non candidate expenditures and if they do they just have to disclose who they are like everybody else who spends money to try to influence elections the disclosure requirements consist of registration of the independent expenditure committee and reporting groups or individuals to accept a thousand or more in contributions during a calendar year to expand on on can expenditures will have to register with the secretary of state as a non candidate expenditure committee are committees that make more than at the. AS in dollars in non candidate expenditures in a calendar year we'll have to file a couple of reports with the secretary of state at regular intervals saying who they are and who their contributors are who give two hundred and fifty dollars or more of money that is used for non candidate expenditures as well as in kind contributors so someone who gives two fifty Alaskan Renee remain anonymous so the small dollar ordinary folks are not affected by this at all this is really aimed at the the big money interests are reporting and oversight will be done by the ethics commission a registered voter can also sue to force compliance so that someone registered in this state and I would say that Do you know at this point. The. Concerns from last session of the family council have all been addressed we believe so as far as I know they have not taken a position on the bill because we specifically exempted the voter guides and the member to member communication that they didn't want covered in there and that was understandable so I think the idea just tears at the end of the day we're trying for more transparency we're trying for more you to treat this the same as any other kind of campaign spending and to take on the corrosive and harmful trended our money in our appellate judicial elections anyone can say what they want can even be untrue we just want to know who you are when you said in order to have integrity in our judicial elections in our judiciary and with that I'd invite Mister Keith up and I'm I'm happy to take any questions well I think with that we're going to have to pause your we're now at the time that we need to vacate the room but we'll pick up back in Rep of Mister Keith will be recognized at that time to come to the table and I would anticipate between now and then people will have some questions to ask you so remember all that members with that we're in recess until ten minutes after German.