Judiciary Committee- House

Just like to make remarks about the bill in its potential I think for the state in in their in their job duties or for that matter so this is a stat that I didn't know before I started in this bill that Arkansas ranks forty seven for violent crime in the country forty seventh and that's nothing that we should be proud of and and it's really a path that we need to look to alter in so SB three hundred is hopefully a tool that's going to help in some ways what it does specifically is it it it's it's a model law after the a successful project safe neighborhoods program that's administered on the federal level and what it does is try to remove the most dangerous of felons from our communities by keeping them behind bars. In simply that the bill does it changes the existing sentencing requirements related to positions by certain persons statutes more specifically at Senate bill three hundred eliminates early parole for those convicted addict of a Class B. felony in possession and so on and make sure because it was this is something that I had worked for myself I wanna make sure who we're talking about there's really only three sets of individuals are going to follow fall underneath at the impact of this bill for so first the first bucket is you have to have a previous a violent felony possession so you've been charged and convicted of a violent felony and your then caught as a felony in possession for a felon in possession second you can have a previous felon in possession conviction so if you think about that one you've been charged and convicted of a felony then you are again picked up charged and convicted of a felony possession and you do it a third time you are charged convicted as a felon in possession in in third there's a have a previous felony conviction and use the firearm to commission another crime so those are the three buckets the individuals that we be talking about in this situation we we've done a lot over the years to really take a look at our sentencing laws here in the state in in kind of one of the a repeating theme so it was you know we we don't need to be locking up the folks that were mad at we need to make sure that will locking up the folks that we're scared of and these are in fact the folks at that our citizens are scared of and the folks that need to be behind bars what we like to think is this is a limited number of people in this state about right now if you're sentenced to eighteen year if you have a ten year sentence in your your convicted under one of the statutes then you really it would only serve approximately fourteen months of your your sense of any again so this is this expands that on out there is a cost of the state of Arkansas you know that's been estimated by corrections that that's in your folder. Assuming shall have the sheets there in front of you again what we're hoping that doesn't become reality we're hoping that these are there we don't have that many of these folks on our streets or they're not growing at the pace that may be ended pick indicated by the report but if they do what we've ask Is in corrections will be doing is making sure that we track the number of folks that are sentence under these new guidelines and if if we do see something is needed to be done we'll be able to access with Lee and make sure we have the space space for these folks I with that alternative questions again there's I think there's several folks or signed up like to speak for the bill. Members are there any questions a field point out there is a financial impact statement on your desk on this bill representative Clowney you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair both. They're just thinking you just tell me a little bit more about that very last at the side if there's you know if if the realities or tracks with what the projections are here what kinds of things do you have in mind to address that ultimate quarter billion document ultimately you would have to increase your bed space make sure that we have the bed space needed to house these folks one of things I think's been seen is when a crackdown in different areas in the state utilizing the federal program that it essentially plateaus at over three year period honest people they can speak a lot more plainly about that in and have the a better handle on the numbers but that's that's kind of what the same and I want to but any misconception out there that you know there's not going to be an uptick in the number of people you know that serve at fuller sentence or the full sentence they be that they have in that increases population we don't know exactly how many this is just the estimated average that corrections was given by the consultant thank you. Members any other questions. Seeing no other questions we do have some individuals who signed up to speak for against Mr Rosenzweig if you'll come forward you've signed up to speak against the bill you'll be recognized identify yourself. Jeff Rosenzweig Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers this bill goes way beyond what is necessary to get at the problem Senator tries to reach up for a number of things the Class B. felony talks about person has a prior five violent felony conviction there's no limitation on when the conviction occurred could been thirty years ago forty years ago as a matter of the the person's current possession of a firearm involves commission of another offense didn't have to be violent offense it can be the fact that the the gun was was stolen it does not have does not have to be used in any way if the person is committing another offense they're gonna be sentence for that offence used in a robbery or Houston you know the homicides of of some sort or that you they have a prior conviction of the possessory offense a gun found in the car now. The up but let's assume that those are the people you are trying to get the no parole is going to cause a huge increase in the a prison population because of the sentencing range for A. B. felony is five to twenty if they have to prior felony convictions of any sort not necessarily violent of could be too high check convictions then the Rangers five to thirty if they have for more it's five to forty and you're going to put a no parole on them no parole for thirty years no parole for forty years the feds don't do that the fed the federal federalist ten years the the the the federal felon in possession of a firearm Page ten years and there's and there's an eighty five percent maximum on or you're eligible after serving eighty five percent of with much lesser amount of the no parole will affect how the prison operates because you are depriving them of the the prison authorities of the carrot of seeking a good behavior Of of the inmate because if you're telling them no matter what you do no matter whether was violent or not and no matter what programs you do no matter how will you behave you're not cutting your sentence them today I mean this you have a seventy percent rule for rate capital rape first degree murder kidnapping all sorts of of you know various other class Y. felonies but you're going to have a hundred percent. For felon in possession of a firearm it just simply makes no sense if you want to have a parole requirement there this statute server full of seventy percent lost fifty percent laws that type thing but you need to have some sort of incentive for for behavior and particularly when you're dealing with of sentences that are that can be of extreme length and I'm happy to answer any questions. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions thank you Mr Rosenzweig. We have signed up to speak for the bill Phillip Miller. Mr Bradley you want to come up at the same time both of these individuals have signed up to speak for. We'll identify yourself for the record and then Mr Miller you'll be recognized. Good morning Philip Miller on the White County sheriff. Committee chairwoman committee I appreciate you let me speak this morning and I'll be brief of my comments I brought with me today. A two inch stack of reports that are double sided printed. Just in the past five years the White County sheriff's department has investigated a total of a hundred and twenty nine. Session of firearms by certain person cases. Where the person was already convicted of a felony but that's not what I'm here to testify about today what I'm here to testify about today lime here in support of this bill and ask that you be in support of it as well is that of those hundred and twenty nine cases. Twenty seven of those individuals. While in possession of a firearm committed thirteen aggravated assaults three aggravated residential burglaries three aggravated robberies a homicide nine felony fleeing is where there was injuries in the pursuit of the fleeing. Seven batteries and domestic batteries ten terroristic threatening says to endangering the welfare of a minor felony offenses and one offence of kidnapping. Those same twenty seven people eleven of them were currently out on parole. I think that this bill addresses. What needs to be addressed and that is the people that need to be in prison stay in prison they don't they don't stay for fourteen months has been testified but that they stay. In prison and out of society where they can't commit these other additional violent offenses. And with that that's all I'll I have this morning I'll be happy to answer any questions. Members are there any questions of the sheriff. Seeing no questions create your testimony Mister Bradley you. One man chairman and committee I'm Scott Bradley I'm the director the Arkansas sheriff's association I. Heard a few notes here This bill this bill targets violent repeat criminals and then it doesn't target weapons we are after the violent repeat criminals not the guns to that end the bill only amends the sentencing to existing possession by certain persons that's Michael felony possession statutes it does nothing to change actual crime itself. Currently the parole eligibility is too lax and provides little deterrent effect for these types of criminals the Bill impacts violent repeat criminals by making possession of a firearm by certain persons in eligible for parole in other words five to ten years means five to ten years no parole date main fourteen months after you try to kill someone robbed them and with the use of a firearm. To qualify for no parole in the sentencing under this bill the defendant mom in possession of a firearm must meet one of the following requirements. The person has a prior violent felony conviction the person currently the person's current possession of firearm involves commission of another crime or the person has been previously convicted under this section or similar provision from another jurisdiction. It target specifically violent repeat offender I'll say it again not someone that receives a felony conviction from years ago that gets caught on his way to deer camp going to kind. It's modeled after the federal project safe neighborhoods program. That seeks to remove dangerous felons from communities by keeping him behind bars a program that has proven to reduce violent crime. Cody how he came to us as actual at one of our conferences and spoke to us about this program and actually offer to help some of the share for some of their worst offenders in their in their counties that's who we want to look at we won't look at the people that were are scared of you've heard that term and I think it's very important that we want to lock up the people now we want to focus on the people now that we're scared of we're mad at these people doing drugs and **** up and making the stakes were mad at him and I think we do a decent job of trying to get those people help we do need to get those people out but we do need to provide programs for them but as well we need to be firm on our violent people who are hurting each other I mean I I see this is not hopefully a nonpartisan bill because I mean you got everybody the if you're violent you're valid it don't matter who you are if you've got the best ET grab a weapon and shoot someone it doesn't matter what color you are that matter Can we really afford not to have our paid offenders removed from our communities the financial cost of the system of allowing the revolving door the catch release policy of these top criminals is significant having to catch him again again again the damages done our communities before we can do that having to prosecute them again and again placed our officers in danger is unacceptable and entirely avoidable. I will say it again we should imprison the people that were scared of not the ones were mad at. We need to toughen up on our sentencing for violent repeat offenders and this is just the way that we can do that. With that I'll I'll answer any questions members are there any questions for Mister Bradley. Representative Richardson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair it's just a question so if we remove the possibility of parole what do you think that does two of the. Officers that are maintaining the facility whether they're in prison or and you know and in custody with you guys I mean if there's no incentive for them to act right what do you think can impact that's going to have with your guys thank you representative Richard sent out I don't think we need to take that away from our prison population as a whole however. These people are violent people are not going to stop what they're doing so I thank for them there needs to it needs to be tough we've got we've got people we've got people who are rolling with guns ride with guns all the time our kids are gangs are just people are are violent predators around guys the carrying guns and they know if they get caught. There's no significance to that they're going to get fourteen months and are going to be right back out. I think this changes that I think when they hear me and you get caught with a gun especially if you got a violent criminal history that you're going to do five years up to ten I think they're gonna stop carrying the guns and I think that's going to save officers lives deputies lives and I think it's going to save their own lives by not carrying those guns and I don't know if that answers your questions open those. Represents like you're recognized for a question director Bradley as the. Some of the zoo of offended again with a firearm on the violent ones how long do they usually stay in prison when they violated the second time with a firearm. I believe that's fourteen months do they actually follow up ma'am. Yes I'm sorry. How long is that for fourteen months do they actually serve the. Not so that I think the average sentences just roughly nineteen years and the average time that they service fourteen months I think. I don't want to have to force corrections in this discussion I think that a greed that that's generally correct so there should serving up a fraction of their sentence and and what we're seeing is is there's not enough of the targeted current out there to the encourage them not to carry weapons and that's what we're looking to do here so the last thing that folks want to do is get popped or have whatever the word is by the feds with a felon position because of the additional sentence that that carries and so it is in the works as a deterrent in those types of cases or what did they see it as and so just kind of you know repeating that and think this is so that have with that program is when aerobic translate into this one okay thank you. Represent college recognized for a question thank you madam chair sure rally a couple times you referred to a violent person is that a characteristic you believe is just. Associated with the person at a certain point where it's irretrievable they're just a violent person you and you can't get him back. Our job is to keep people safe representative Collins and and that's what we're trying to do but this bill they've shown a propensity on more than one occasion to use a firearm to hurt people or to commit crimes so these are the people we really want to focus on They've already shown that they're not going to stop what they're doing that maybe. I'm the same map fourteen months on a ten year sentence is the maximum that they'll survive so it might be less than that. What we're doing what we're doing is not working. And that if you don't mind I'll I think I can answer that question just a little bit I think the bigger word is repeat I mean and so the these are folks that have committed a violent felony charge convicted. That are then you know of felon in possession I mean you've got some of that has been violent by the definition wall convicted as violent that it is you know carrying weapon illegally are the second would be that someone commit a felony again I just go thirty and someone's committed felon that gets caught with the then in charge convicted as a felony possession that's two times and then do it does it a third time I think that they've shown the fact that they are repeating you know their behavior or that the deterrent that was in place in the first time didn't work and then lastly if someone has a previous felony conviction that so doesn't mean they're in a felony possession but they are utilizing a weapon for their second crime that they are charged and convicted of and so yes I think the at the these are in general what we would call a violent people of means you don't carry a weapon and commit a crime just for the fun of it I mean I think you do have an intent to use at one point even if it isn't ultimately used it you have that intent there and again it's just something and I think yet it is the repeat factor that's probably just as significant as the the violent. It. Mr if I may respond Mr Collins's requip. Kind of separate from this bill but it to kind of answer your question you know we we utilized ACT three oh nine inmates in our jails and we we have for years and one thing I hear from them repeatedly is. If if my first or second or third. Trip down. Had been is it had been as hard as this one in the in my Senate said been like this one I wouldn't be back and I can promise you I won't be back next time and I've tracked him and those folks are coming back when they finally realize and they understand how serious it is now and that they're not just in for a few minutes few months and out. They. More often than not are changing their ways and I think that that's what this is after is no the the the repeat ones that are in for fourteen months back out in fourteen months back out when they were when they finally land for a while and can actually. Be there and realized the gravity of their situation realized the gravity of the crime and be able to take advantage of the programs that are offered. You see a turnaround I see a turnaround in just the ones that that we've had in my time shares office thank you. Representative Hudson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair and I and I think that in in you all sort of touched on pieces of this but with regard to recidivism or rehabilitation or and just deterrents as far as having a longer sentence have you seen with at the state level not the federal level and I do appreciate that distinction but at the state level where and the that the threat of a longer sentence has been a successful deterrent for these types of of individuals yes man and I wish I am Allen I I guess he's not able to make it today there may be something happens something else going on but he he could really testify to that they they saw a lot of success with that program and the fact that it is a deterrent when it's the difference between getting pulled over by police officers get enough though you're gonna have a car we're keeping in the car in the I mean that one example of that generally these employees use before so yes I do believe that that there is. I can testify I'm I had the one of the guys that runs the The dog program calico rock he has a dogs it shall you know goes to find the scabies people that run it sometimes just people kids that wander off they do all kinds of different things but he actually came to me. When we started this bill and and he said thank you these people that were chasing now are not tossing their guns away they're keeping on and when we do finally come in contact with me comes to a head in a lot of times it's ballot we need to do something to get on the to put the guns away I too wish Cody was here eight I know everyone needs to talk to me talk about working with the some of the bigger cities the larger cities with this program were was very effective where I know that the chiefs were there and thanked him for the program wanted to continue the program the chief said now that we're stopping some of these vehicles the first thing they say when officers walking up as were not right not we're not riding hot so the word does get out or what's going on then it date is effective and I honestly believe this bill will save lives they really will on both sides. Quick follow up madam chair you're recognized he said is Cody is the guy with the with the dog dog's name and know all read as it. Actually I don't wanna fan Cody how in cities where fees are for federal prosecutor I have a lot of. No but the dogs do look like read they have these big long years and they're not by dogs they just they just chase them and I don't release the dogs on the people that they will find a when I was sheriff may have your county use on numerous occasions and I developed a good friendship with the what those guys and When I got this job is sometime back he asked me he said if you do anything try to try to get the hands of these people's guns out of these people's hands that'll make a real difference so. Represent Clowney you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair I hear a lot of what you are saying with respect to safety outside of the prisons right safety in our communities one of the concerns this raises for me a safety within our prisons of for adding this number of prisoners who were taking away an incentive to behave well rate if we take away any possibility of parole can you speak to how that impacts behavior of prisoners who have lost that incentive. I mean I'm I'm just thinking in general terms. That good behavior didn't work the first time I mean because again these are repeat offenders with weapons I mean it it's a completely different. Situation I think and what were you know we we've got the dragon goes through and we have whatever it may be in in those folks are in prison for the most part right now anyway because we're diverting and do our best big argue we can't get them you know back a productive citizens but again it did not work the first time they had their opportunity to get out with that early parole and they did not utilize it you know turn right back around it all over again and how many times does that occur. Before they actually do utilize that weapon you are charged and convicted as a felon in possession how many times do you didn't have to happen before you do pull that trigger or whatever it may be in that situation and I think it's just clearly just a matter of time so. I would follow up on that in to the cases specifically they've got I won't go into details with names or anything but two of them that are that have been convicted. Gone to prison paroled out going back to prison rolled out both situations I've got one officer that was shot at in another one that pulled the gun follow fought with my officer was able to get his gun away and thankfully thankfully didn't pull the trigger at the last second so I don't think that that the incentive of of good behavior in you're gonna you're gonna parole back out is. Quite frankly when I when I see them and listen to two inmates talk in there except they're excited when they can get out of the county jail backup and go to the ATC because let me to be out a little bit man it you know long as I don't get more than ten years I'll be out just a little bit no big deal no big deal that's that's there that's what we hear all the time it's no big deal and at some point it does need to be a big deal thank you. Represent Gazaway you're recognized for a question. The manager. So I guess first let me begin by saying at I don't know that there's anybody on this committee who. is more sick takes violent crime more serious than me I put people in prison for Capital murder every type of murder that you can imagine ray pickcenter. But and I don't think there's anybody on this committee also who would disagree that we shouldn't be punishing violent felons harshly I think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who would disagree with that idea. But the question that we have before us today is a policy decision about how long we keep these offenders who you're talking about repeat offenders. Locked up in prison without the possibility of parole. And this bill says no eligibility for parole. Now you could have said fifty percent. You could have said seventy percent rapist seventy percent for instance this says no eligibility for parole I think there are some legitimate concerns about Hey how that affects behavior in prison but beyond that an impact on the budget and so these are policy decisions no one would disagree we should lock up violent felons. But between the budget and the operation of the prisons. How do you respond to that. Is there you have a question or more to statement. I mean I am. Well I think I've responded when I made a presentation for the bill these repeat folks these are folks that are carrying weapons that are charged with felony possession you know this this was the bill that I said in its current form any member in this audience is is you know more than willing or able to make amendments could brought amendments today to change that if they feel differently I hope that I can get into that I think these folks should serve the full sentence and that they've been given by their peers and and so and in a sense I suppose that's mine my response. Representative Richardson you're recognized for a question. Actually madam chair is can is is it okay if we bring of. Yes Secretary Greg graves I I'd really like to get his opinion on on that impact okay Secretary graves comes forward I'm going to move over to Ferguson he may have a question so Senator Dismang. Thank you madam chair I think I have a question for some of the gentleman who get ready to leave a there's something in the mail about aggravated robbery or aggravated assault I want to definition for that is that already in statute. Yeah that's already in statute we're not changing means statue with the exception of the possession by certain individuals whatever it may be that what could you tell me or someone tell me what that is I mean a definition for it says if someone is. Prosecuted for that they won't have any eligibility for parole could you just tell me quickly with the definition of aggravated robbery is. In order to enhance of residential burglary or assault with the term aggravated it has to have included the use of a firearm either possessed a firearm. With the person being able to see it pulled a firearm out and actually use the firearm in some manner to rise above mere burglary assault to aggravated. Get one follow up and chair your opponent off on a definition so if a person. B. B. seven years ago I had my house broken into and to adopt fortunately I wouldn't dare will my daughter when they're either the if if one of us have been there in a. Cool the weapon on us. Two. Rob us in the House. With that be aggravated. Yes Sir. So that they don't have to shooters you don't have to harmless just have the weapon on them just pull the weapon and twenty that is that's right they have to use the the weapon by some means of threat they have to show you they have a weapon they have to tell you they have a weapon they have to engage you with the weapon in some way and not not. without that it doesn't have that aggravates so if they pulled the weapon out. To show me they've got the weapon. And then put it back in the host to that still aggravated. Robbery yes Sir okay. Thank you manager right secretary grace if you come on forward then representative Richardson all recognize you for your question to secretary grow. Secretary if you go ahead and just identify yourself for the record and then I'm record represent Richardson has a question for you Solomon gross secretary of corrections a madam chair I just want to state I have with me Lindsey Wallace who is the director of our sentencing commission sent if there are any questions specific to sentencing or impact methodology. US secretary grace the thank you guys for being here. I ask the question earlier before about the removal of of. I'm sorry I'm drawing a blank I just forgot what I ask but anyway out regarding the bill so where parole is not available to these guys with no parole again I heard Senator Dismang just say that in his opinion that it doesn't work already or else these guys wouldn't come back. Can you give me your insight as to how do you think the ability to provide prisoners with parole is helping in your facilities. So several years ago when the state of created a system of meritorious good time it was created FOR two fold reason one is a population management but the other is to provide a carrot as an incentive for good behavior while institutionalized. Yes this bill is going to have a impact on our population is Senator Dismang stipulated to that on the front end of his comments. Generally any hundred percent crime gives me concern because while that person is in my custody he or she has no incentive regardless of what programs we give them what privileges we give them they don't have that incentive if they view their release date as their prime rationale for acting right if they're motivated by other factors rehabilitation getting back to their family provided for the children of providing for their children learning a vocational skill yes there are going to of the Hey even follow the rules while in my custody what if none of those things matter to them the only thing that matters to them is when they're going home and nothing about their behavior their program completion is going to change when they go on yes that's going to impact their vote Hey Vuren and when we've seen that with individuals who have of these low your sentences that's why I want to thank Senator Dismang we talk before the meeting and he did say any alluded to this in his comments that he is going to through to the council monitor the impact of this bill and if we do see upticks in our population if we do see changes in behavior among our population I have no reason to not take him at his word that you know he's he's going to revisit this issue and and so the quest sessions or encouraged members to do so and instead but short answer yes parole does in Pat the behavior within our facilities. You have a follow up represent rich yes ma'am thank you so in in your opinion and your experience does it make more sense of because I just heard you say that of given a hundred percent of time you see issuing that of does it make more sense instead of going straight to all out a hundred percent time to stair step maybe a based on the acts that have been committed or or I and I don't know if that makes sense or not but I like to get your opinion from from that perspective. Representative I'm a generally as as a rule and I and I don't say this to Dodger question in in any way but we have historically shied away from taking positions on sentencing because that's not our role we in terms of what makes I think Senator representative Gazaway used the term policy decision that's the responsibility of the hundred and thirty five of the all elected to represent the members of this state do we generally do we have alternatives where we stair step based on numbers of felony commitments yes do we have instances where we enhanced sentence is based on aggravating factors or we do sentence lands based on mitigating factors yes general generally speaking with that be a alternative already in existence yes. Thank you. Members any other questions represent guess what you're recognized. Graves can you tell us what the and you've probably already said this is probably been stated three four times already but an estimated fiscal impact of having to keep these offenders for the entire term of their sentence and how that will affect the department of corrections the it impact assessment that our state sentencing commission compiled was two hundred and fifty million and some change over ten year period. Are you good represent guess what okay. Members any other questions. Seeing no further questions thank you secretary for your being here this morning we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill Sir Dismang before you close for your bill is my understanding that there was an amendment that you needed to run very quickly so let's hear your amendment and we'll take your amendment up for you okay do with doing that is a verbal amendment or have the offense being printed okay. We just haven't gotten it just hasn't come up And so what we'll ask you to do is go ahead and present your amendment I don't think there will be any opposition to it but you'll need to stick around to sign your amendment seeming that we adopt so if you'll present your amendment yep my understanding is represent count County did not intend to sign up as a sponsoring this showed up as a sponsor on the bill and so I'm not not sure exactly what happened so this amendment which is strikers a sponsor on the bill. Members you've heard the amendment is to remove representative Clowney as a co sponsor is there any objection to is taking up the amendment now. Seeing no objection to I have a motion on the amendment I have a motion to adopt the amendment any discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye. Motion carries your amendment has been adopted and you are now recognized to close for your bill as amended and I think we've thoroughly went through exactly the folks that we're talking about the types of crimes that they committed in and how they would be sentenced and so I think of we thoroughly covered covered everything so with that I'd appreciate a good vote thank you. Member Senator Dismang has closed for his bill what are the wishes of the committee. I have a motion to a motion to do pass as amended is there any discussion on the motion. Seeing no discussion all in favor of the motion to do pass as amended police say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it motion carries congratulations you've passed your bill the manager of. We have a roll call. Representative Ferguson. No representative flowers representive flowers. Representive Nicks. Representative Nicks. Representive Richmond. Representive Richmond. Representative Cavenaugh. Yes representative Gazaway. Representative Gazaway. Representative berry. Yes representative Crawford. Yes representative Scott. Representative Scott. Representative Slape. yes representative Clowney. Representive Clowney. Representative Cooper. Yes representative Richardson. No representative Collins. No representative McCalla. Representative McCollum. Representative Hudson. No representive Underwood. Yes representive Smith. Yes. The motion is failed. Members let's go back to the top of our agenda house bill thirteen twenty one representative Gazaway. Members this is a concurrence in the Senate amendment. House bill thirteen twenty one representative guess what you're recognized. You're recognized. Thank you madam chair committee this is just a simple amendment came from the Senate. At the. Changes that adds a few of additions the definition of critical instruction is the bill that passed. I believe unanimously out of this committee almost unanimously off the house floor of the Senate again very simple amendment this bill passed the Senate with almost no dissenting votes and so we're just concurring in the Senate amendment I make a motion to pass without the amendment appreciate a good vote. Members we have an it will first of all any questions. Regarding the amendment. Seeing none we do have a motion to do pass to concur in the Senate amendment any discussion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no I have a motion carries we have concurred in the Senate amendment. Amber's let's move to House Bill fifteen ninety three it's also a concurrence in the Senate amendment representative Gazaway you're recognized. Thank you madam chair of a committee this is just a very simple amendment. Added a good cause shown and not for an arbitrary or capricious reason. that was is that the suggestion of representative Ballinger Senator Ballenger I'm sorry and then section to just add some clarifying language to who this applies to again another bill that passed overwhelmingly out of the house overwhelmingly on the Senate. And I make a motion that we adopt the amendment and do pass. Members are there any questions seeing no questions we have a motion for concur in the Senate amendment all in favor please say aye. Any oppose so I know that we have the ayes have it graduations we have concurred in your amendment. Members the next bill up will be house bill fourteen oh five representative brown. You're recognized represent ground present House Bill Fortino five. Thank you madam chair and committee. Today I bring you House Bill Fortino five. An act to create Quincy's law to provide for consideration of differential diagnoses in an investigation involving abuse under the child maltreatment act and for other purposes. This bill. Simply. Stipulates that people accused of child abuse may get a second opinion. I believe that they would be able to do that without this legislation. However I do want to thank the department of children and family services in Arkansas children's hospital for providing this amended language for House Bill Fortino five Quincy's law. The conditions listed in this legislation are referred to generally as connective tissue disorders which can mimic child abuse. And I'm sure you would like to know why I have titled this bill Quincy's law. Quincy's parents brought their concerns to me over a year ago. I'd like some others they approach did not be able to quit to take on their concerns but I decided that god put me in this position for a reason and that I would have to rely on him to provide me with what I needed. Quincy it had one problem after another failure to thrive vomiting the breastfed milky received by seeing as the list goes on mom and dad read the pediatrician's office frequently to try to resolve Quincy's issues. Long story short Quincy at the age of three months was discovered to have eighteen broken bones in various stages of healing and the hematoma. Children with connective tissue disorders can suffer broken bones before birth during light and during labor and delivery. They can also be so fragile that their bones can break with normal handling. Subsequent to the diagnosis that Quincy had been abused his father was arrested and charged with felony child abuse a hung jury left the family with a big decision to plead to misdemeanor or go through the whole ordeal again the father chose to play the disk misdemeanor. Over the last year so I have tried to get a grasp on what could be done to resolve the injustices my constituents believe they have suffered. If this legislation helps raise awareness and gives families a tool to help protect against a missed or incorrect diagnoses then it will serve a purpose. The challenge is when parents are unaware of connective tissue disorders especially if they have never been diagnosed with the CTD themselves why would they even avail themselves of the option to get a second opinion consider these conditions. I am very concerned that an adequate family history was not taken by any of Quincy's doctors including the child abuse pediatrician at Arkansas children's hospital or his mother's OBGYN. I've now read quite a bit about connective tissue disorders they are genetic they are heritable but they can occur spontaneously however genetic testing is not the most reliable way to identify a CTD genetic testing can be used to confirm or identify a specific subtype of a dispose disorder if that type has been identified but research is ongoing and you subtypes are continually being identified and receiving a diagnosis may just be the beginning because apparently there is much overlap between C. TD's especially if both parents have a connective tissue disorder so additional diagnoses may be reached over time. C. two days are relatively rare but they do have striking observable physical characteristics. I'm incredulous that Quincy's parents had never been diagnosed with the CTD however early this year Quincy's mother was diagnosed with Ehlers Danlos type three she presents with classic physical characteristics and has held had health conditions typical of EDS throughout her life. And Quincy's father had a diagnostic appointment in March he presents with classic Marvin syndrome characteristics abnormally long arms legs toes and fingers for vision crowded teeth those are just things anyone can observe. Why these young adults were never diagnosed is difficult for me to understand but I am learning that it is not unusual for CT days to frequently go undiagnosed until adulthood or possibly never I believe that the parents had been diagnosed this whole matter could have been avoided because the OBGYN would have known the high likelihood of Quincy having heritable CTD and could have directed the parents to genetic counseling where they would have learned of his possible for GLT. In the parents ongoing search to find figure out what's wrong with Quincy they recently learned that Quincy does have stickler syndrome which they were told is a close cousin of Ehlers Danlos. All of what I'm learning casts doubt in my mind on whether Quincy was actually abused however I will leave that to the conscience and ethical considerations of the doctor to review what more she could have done to have come to a different diagnosis perhaps confirmation bias needs to be considered. And absolving Quincy's father of abuse may not be a possibility since he did plead guilty to the misdemeanor hoping to get back to a normal life as quickly as possible however that may not be possible before. For a quite awhile because once your name is on the child abuse registry finding a decent job to support his family seems to be a distant memory. My greatest concern right now is making sure that Quincy and his family receive the care they need correct diagnoses will help parents understand the challenges they have faced during their lives in Quincy's and enable them to take the proper steps to be able to live better healthier lives in the father's case he could be facing a serious heart condition and the jury is out on how many challenges Quincy will face both father and son could experience shorten lifespans we all make mistakes and if Quincy's diagnosis was a mistake all is not lost this cloud does have a silver lining both mother and father may now be getting targeted health care to enable them to live more normalized and they are now by both better equipped to attended Quincy specific needs I want to point out that the concerns of misdiagnosis. Of. Contec connective tissue disorders as abuse is not just a concern in this case but child abuse pediatricians a fairly new specialty and the misdiagnosis of C. T. D.'s S. abuse is raising alarm across the country in fact I have been listening to testimony in the Texas legislature from numerous families whose lives have been torn apart and fortunes drained when a parent has been diagnosed with abuse and their children have been removed from the home. I'll be glad to answer any questions members are there any questions representative Cavenaugh you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair my one concern with this is that we do have children that really are abused and and it happens quite frequently unfortunately and this is could required that those children who have already experienced trauma that have to not only go to one examination but another examination. Once they've already had the trauma because these examinations are not always not to matic themselves they are traumatic on these children that are truly abused. So we're going to open the door to where if you have a parent that wants to be vindictive to another parent they could required that these children have multiple examination is that not a unintended consequence of this. I appreciate your concern but is also traumatic for a child to be ripped from its parents arms and separated for months and possibly years or maybe never returned. this bill specifically excludes children from being And reexamine who have experienced sexual abuse. So they will they will not have to go to that trauma and the kinds of exams that these children might experience would it just be so you know. Basically the type of eggs it might not seem any more strange than just a doctor's visit because a lot of the conditions that of our of observable. A our hyper mobile joints where I know you've seen people take their thumb and bring it back to their forearm you've seen A state you know. what am I trying to take a reduced stature a child not growing to the proper height these are not necessarily traumatic types of exams. Follow up manager you're recognized for follow up and I understand any child being taken away from their father but someone is sent to the president of the board of the children's shelter who sees these abuse children every day. Any examination that they have to go through after being ripped from their parents and the only family they know is dramatic whether it's sexual or physical or mental idiot does affect these children and my concern is when we start to require multiple examinations it is going to be detrimental to those children that truly are be used and I understand that we need to have a way for others to understand the real problem when we don't have it be is but we do have a genetic disorder I'm just concerned in the unintended consequence of this this sale does not require anything. Represents like you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair representative brown up appreciate what you're doing here on this of no a couple cases it's similar but locally that DNA and we showed that these children were the because of their medical condition and it wasn't from child abuse and was appreciative of that some of this the also help with the training of the investigators on them on what to look for on certain it usually the younger tie up that has easy injuries the broken bones C. of the non healing the different conditions at their end so I can the I can see this business is going to encourage investigators to. To understand a little more what they're investigating this bill would do. I would hope so like I said this this bill started out much more complex bill because I tried to I tried to adapt some Texas legislation that is presented by representative click in Texas but when you consider how their government is structured and their their departments are structured and how they do things it just wasn't going to be an easy match so Arkansas children's hospital I expect I expressed my primary concern. And this was a legislation that department of children and family services and Arkansas children's hospital provided to me it it just it to me it just simply well it says it in here it allows the people who are accused the state for the purpose of ruling out a possible differential diagnoses request that a license health care provider who routinely provides medical care to pediatric patients examine the alleged victim to determine whether or not the alleged victim has one or more of the following medical conditions but it it it's not requiring this but I think what what this will do I'm hoping if nothing else this will bring attention to the fact that we need to be much more careful even in the department of children and family services I get my department As Department children family services here in Arkansas and a and also I get the impression this is strictly anecdotal but I get the impression that these child abuse pediatricians are Gen some sort somehow or another considered infallible in there to you know their decision and they're not as been proved in the Texas legislature from the testimony I've heard from parents who have spent thousands upon thousands of dollars of fathers experiencing PTSD and mother's anxiety disorders after all they've gone through. To have their case determined that it was a connective tissue disorder and not a case of abuse. Members are there any other questions seeing no other questions we have one individual is signed up to speak for the bill Mr call you'll come forward to the table in a defy yourself and you'll be recognized to speak. Mr Koepnick yes if I to what have a seat at the at the they're at the chair. Yeah. M. push that button right there in front of you. Yes if you push that button they light up in if you'll identify yourself and then you may make your statement. Hello and chairing committee members Mister decker call I'm here to represent myself. Okay Mr koko head and and let the committee know what what you want us to. Hi Ashley no I am in favor of House Bill Fortino five. Through Lenovo think we're here my testimony and. Being formally known as the alleged perpetrator by. Arkansas crimes against children division by the court to my. Litigation process it comes. With a very guilty perception. Within the state my peers there were surrounded and it paints the weight of my words as being the title bear of being alleged perpetrator regardless of how my previous record in life was. I will not be home today with a sign which is most important why my my life my wife if not for the price my wife here Sarah. The issue is not process in forgetting when to the proper medical treatment is gathering even up to this point and in Quincy so I was going of this body. Quincy's primary care physician sees the following manifestations of ellers Dallas sent syndrome. Blue square and the whites of his eyes. He still remains a vitamin D. deficient. He is very small in stature for his age. his bow lake in this where is late go in. Easily Bruce's body is from you know every day handling an everyday activity. Furthermore most recently a right knowledges within our that Jordan's. The look the Quincy in its eyes and. Game a clinical diagnosis of six secular center and. Now because of this connected is order and the severity of it is going to have some surgery upon his eyes. None of these discoveries what have been made if the officer again This clinical diagnosis of Ehlers Danlos syndrome in Basra endocrinologist say aye aye decades of experience involving connective tissue disorders. The primary care physician for Sarah in North Little Rock before he retired he also agreed with the assessment. And also her family was also seen by this primary care physician and was familiar with the said hypermobility and he may know that this the data that was made in Boston and was saying yes he agrees that what was. Clinically made in Boston was true. After a who is the primary care physician retired we've been going to from trying to find a doctor that we willing to listen and try to help. Sarah in this and rheumatologist from you a mass Examine Sarah and. So all the characteristics of ellers down the center and also was familiar with the endocrinologist from Boston he also agreed with the connected this order of ellers Danlos. At and after that he was a recommendation for getting further testing done on Sarah. Even at nine months postpartum. The server was vitamin D. deficient you're not it's about nine months. And thank you put this in perspective. What what what could the vitamin D. levels and any other vitals. Four Quincy would have been when he was born. Is been medically proven that approximately two thirds of the the vitamin D. amounts a transfer from the mother to the newborn. And at that time for prior to their given birth to Quincy we had no idea that Quincy is going to be vitamin D. deficient even with they are doing the you know the ABC's of make sure for prenatal vitamins and doing a supplemental vitamins we had no idea that it would catch up to the back to where it would still not be enough to ensure quinces well being overall trajectory a great help. If we as parents were not dismissed time and time again over the first you know at least the first three months of his life there is a distinct possibility he would be you and you know perhaps. Better track a health. And we express our legitimate concerns time and time again. And we're told from various visits that's normal or even worse of we're new pack you guys are new parents and we feel like you guys are already we need to come back and check back here the next day or so. To bring this into a full circle. This bill would help ensure but proper medical testing on our and children. This will also No bill. We ate to weed out any cases where medical conditions mimicking child abuse occur. As as as as Senate bill a win for children you. If the procedure S. the US shows that there were no. Medical condition medical or. Found true in this case it would actually help ensure the accuracy of the original diagnosis or child abuse. On the other same truck we'll flip the right over if on the other hand the initial alleged offender could be clear by the results of the medical members of child built abuse presented the child could very well get the proper needed treatment for the. African descent presented. To put differential diagnoses needs and perspectives are fellow in the knows of at least five hundred other families throughout the United States. There were found here within his own state of Arkansas. We have all experienced. The center trauma. And the very similar steps centers concern are children. This is like there is not an isolated situation. I would say is get very big national problem. And I'm like I say quite a heavy damage but you can get there if we do not as you know Arkansas at least we get on track to help Arkansan families. I urge this laser body to lead the charge United States here for ensuring the proper and accurate medical training for children I ask for a while good vote on this bill. The future of Arkansas and charter is at stake. Thank you and willing to at answer any questions. Thank you Mr call I see no questions we appreciate your testimony today in this call thank you for coming up members we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representative brown you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you madam chair I would just appreciated if you all would. I would appreciate it a positive vote on this bill to raise awareness and to help bring of. Allow parents who may have been wrongly accused of child abuse to bring attention that that there may be a condition that they're not aware of and I do want to say that the calls did get rid of responses from three physicians who deal with children with these kinds of conditions one doctor visit actually examined Quincy and two other doctors reviewed his medical records they all determined that Quincy was born with rickets and had a high possibility of having Ehlers Danlos so I would appreciate a good vote thank you very much. Members represented brown his clothes for her bill what are the wishes of the committee. I have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion of the motion. All in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you have passed your bill thank you Committee. First let's turn our attention now to House bills sixteen ninety six representative Crawford you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you madam chair. Committee today I bring before you house bill sixteen ninety six this was brought to me by the chief of police in Portsmouth it. In the bill is very permissive language and this would allow provision for booking photos and fingerprints to be taken somewhere other than the receiving detention facility it would be helpful for law enforcement as well as a person charged to legally be able to cite fingerprint and release Class say misdemeanor arrest such as shoplifting and possession of marijuana. Without a change in the law. I will take any questions I know that the the House association of chief of police worked with me on this and we change one word from. Shall to may so that it is permissive for those. Agencies that want to do this I'll take any questions. Members are there any questions of representative Crawford. Seeing no questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill representative Crawford you're recognized close for your bill thank you an hour to put out yet make a motion for do pass please. Members represent Crawford his clothes for her bill in there is a motion do pass on the floors there any discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no congratulations you've passed your bill. Members let's turn next to. House bill ten fourteen house bill ten fourteen representative right you're recognized. Representive right you're recognized come to the table representive right you're recognized Monday known. Members were looking at house bill ten fourteen we've previously heard this bill representative prize here to present it again. And thank you madam chairman thank you committee just come to you today are amended to bill. And I took out some pretty little harsh penalties there and basically put it in the hands of a fine and You know this. Is now once spring corn Arkansas. And the only thing we have on here in this state is a law that was passed in nineteen ninety seven. And basically what this is is we do not want anyone to desecrate our flag. And You know freedom of speech has been brought up but I've always argued justice from really is featured all it's actually amam of the last. Of our country. And that we need to look after the flag of our country. More break down can really cause a lot of problems. And. I feel like this is a time in our history what we're turning the corner to go the route where the wrong way. And I don't have a lot more to say about it right now but. I would appreciate you all in every way this is never once spring corn United States it's when in Texas but non United States. And I appreciate you all very much for holding up for bill and really Helena FOR flag. Thank you members are there any questions of representative for a. Seeing no questions we do have an individual is signed up to speak against the bill Mr Rosenzweig you're recognized comport to speak against the bill mmhm. Jeff Rosenzweig Arkansas Association criminal defense lawyers no one's for flag burning or similar flag desecration but the US Supreme Court has held that is a that is conduct that is protected by the first amendment and whether you call it a a a a violation is obviously less than misdemeanor but it is still a crime to be convicted of an and and merely merrily of. Destroying the flag is is the type of thing that the courts have held the US Supreme Court is held in their decision controls in all fifty states plus the district of Columbia. It's not just taxes that is protected by the first amendment and so the staff if this passes clearly unconstitutional and will be and will currently be held such and I will point out that one of them people **** the majority holding it be unconstitutional was just the school Leah he recognized that its first that is protect this conduct is protected by the first amendment. Members are there any questions of Mr Rosenzweig. Seeing no questions thank you for your testimony today representive right you're recognized close for your bill yes ma'am and thank you Mr chairman of basically folks I've just always said that this was really not a part of the. The constitution as far as free speech I've always felt that this was the emblem of the flag of our country. There's been many many folks that have lived and died and went to war over that flag in the safety of our country. And I ask you for a good vote on this and insert ourselves out because I think this is important. Warden saying for our country thank you. Members representive ride his clothes for for his bill what are the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass on the floor there any discussion on the motion representative. Clowney you're recognized for discussion thank you madam chair and thank you again I'm representative ride for working with us and trying to to get this to place or a comparable I agree with Mr Rosenzweig I think that this is just clearly unconstitutional as much as I appreciate the sacrifices that so many have made for the flag and as much as I respect the flag myself as an individual I just think that there is no way this stand up to constitutional challenge which it would receive and so I'm gonna have to be in but just wanted to explain that thanks. And I am a member's members any other discussion. There being no further discussion all in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no. The nose haven't the bill has failed the next bill is house bill fifteen ninety thank you all represented Gazaway. He has stepped out Senate represent guess what are you reading. Represent guess what you're recognized come to the table and present House Bill. You're recognized thank you madam chair my colleagues house bill fifteen ninety simply would allow for. At the up and make an exemption for when certain types of benefits are subject to things like garnishment rips or judgments that are out there this says that typically you can't garnish things like disability benefit payments and so this would allow. if there is a judgment has been entered the my understanding is the garnishment of a certain disability payments but Mr Mike Mitchell who is an attorney here in Little Rock who I think can explain this better and and give you a more accurate picture of how this works. Mr Mitchell I'll give you about three minutes let's see how good you are. C.. The M. on yes up yes ma'am this it will this bill would make a narrow exception to a nineteen thirty three law that. That exempts garnishment or execution on insurance proceeds let me give you an example of a person gets angry at another person Arkansas shoots amend the back to kill it doesn't kill them but it renders them let's say a paraplegic. Our the person that shoots get convicted of a felony. And sentenced to life in prison the injured person Susan gets a judgment for his injuries against the Fallon. Only to find out that Arkansas law says and and let's say the the the felon was collecting do monthly check for disability Arkansas law protects that check of the felon against the injured person this bill would make a narrow exception that if you're getting insurance proceeds and you are convicted of a felony which injures another person then this exemption will not apply such simple. And I think it's got to be a an oversight or a you always hear unintended consequences this was an unintended consequence of a nineteen thirty three law they never thought about an injured person innocent person trying to recover against someone that committed a felony against them and because there injury that's what this does. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representative guess what you're recognized close for your bill thank you madam chair and I left out the key element of the key component of this whole bill which is that it requires a felony conviction so if someone has done something of that is committed a felony and because of that conduct they there's a judgment that's entered in civil court then it makes available certain resources that they have a basically to be order be able to pay restitution and to be able to pay off off that judgment but it requires a felony conviction someone will have to have engaged in a felony offense for this to apply. And so I think that's that's really the important part of the bill and I can let that out my initial presentation I apologize but that's what the bill does And I'd make a motion to pass appreciate a good vote. Members we have a motion to do pass on the floors or any discussion of the motion all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill members are next bills represent guess what I think you're gonna be up against your our next bill house bill eighteen twenty nine is moved to Tuesday's agenda so House Bill eighteen twenty nine will be heard on Tuesday so represent Gazaway that brings us to House Bill eighteen seventy eight members there is a financial impact statement the House Bills that. House Bill eighteen seventy eight so you may want to take a look at that. And with that represent Gazaway you're recognized. Thank you madam chair. With the chairs permission could Kirk lane the Drug Director join me at the table and also I believe A representative from the Arkansas prosecuting attorneys association. Yes thank you. Represent guess what you're recognized to present your bill and then the individuals with you at the time you speak if you'll identify yourself. Represent guess what you're recognized thank you madam chair. House Bill eighteen seventy eight. Is a bill that will. Empting pose increased penalties for two of the most dangerous drugs that we're seeing in Arkansas today fentanyl and heroin. If you look at the way that our drug statutes are currently structured we have made special exceptions in our law for methamphetamine and cocaine. Because medic we have recognized over the years that methamphetamine and cocaine are highly addictive and they're highly dangerous and those are the two drugs that we have had particular problems with in Arkansas on that have been. Plaguing communities all around the country and so several years ago the legislature. set out separate statute specifically for methamphetamine and cocaine and increase the penalties for those particular drugs. I will tell you under existing law offense no I believe is a schedule two controlled substance and heroin is a schedule one controlled substances already against the law to possess those but what we have seen is a dramatic increase in the number of deaths because of fentanyl and if you're not familiar with federal it is one of the most highly potent drugs that you could ever imagine. In fact it's dosed in micrograms which is a millionth of a gram and it doesn't take very much at all. To kill a person I can tell you Drug Director lane had a example the other day where he we have status we can loan package any ported out on the table and that amount of here one I'm sorry that amount but no I believe it was enough to kill five hundred people and I'll give you another example that was recently in the news there was a bust in the state of Nebraska. This was just I believe from a your two ago Nebraska state police seize nearly a hundred twenty pounds of fentanyl. And up to kill twenty six million people. Hundred twenty pounds of fentanyl is enough to kill twenty six million people it is incredibly potent is incredibly dangerous and what happens what is happening in our communities and across the state is that people are. messing around with fennel not knowing just how dangerous it is and it's caused multiple people to die Really because they didn't understand just how dangerous it was and so what this bill seeks to do is to treat fentanyl and heroin which again as schedule one controlled substance and it's that is scheduled as a schedule one because it's highly addictive and dangerous and that's how they rank those schedules of drugs marijuana for instance in Arkansas I believe is a schedule six as the low schedule here one because of its potency because of its dangerousness. because of its addictive qualities is a schedule one the highest that we recognize so what this bill does simply is we treat heroin just as we already treat methamphetamine and cocaine so those separate statutes that we have for methamphetamine and cocaine we adhere one to that so we're going to treat that just like we do method okay fentanyl we're creating kind of a new framework for and we treated similarly to how we treat also methamphetamine and cocaine but the difference is because of the way it's dosed again it takes such a minuscule amount of fentanyl to cause the death of a person that basically any any possession of any quantifiable amount would be an offense of possession if you have it with the purpose to deliver you know that's going to be an enhanced charge and if you're delivering it or manufacturing it. Then that that's an enhanced charge. And I think we the witnesses that I have here can get into the more specifics about it but in general that's what the bill does these are two of the most serious drugs that we're currently that with her when for instance we're seeing a resurgence in Arkansas and fentanyl is is. Causing deaths in communities all across the state so we need to treat it more seriously than we do the others and I think my witnesses can expound on those issues thirty first although we have any questions of representative Gazaway is on the bill itself represented very you're recognized for a question thank manager. Where is the majority of this growth comes law. So I can answer that the majority of what we're seeing is coming from China from illicit labs on the illicit fentanyl we're saying it transported down through the Mexican cartels in our realizing that may execute cartels or obtaining the precursors to from China to make illicit fentanyl so we'll have to experience that the future. Basically coming from on. Well you know you're recognized basically coming from our open border. Well from China yes. Thank you. And recommend it but if I could respond briefly to that also. And I can go back to some of my experience just my practical experience the first time that I ever encountered a case that involved Sentinel I think was probably in two thousand eleven or twelve somewhere in that area and actually prosecuted a case of an individual who admitted to the police that he had put fentanyl patches so but no is a. Used for people that have intense pain a lot of times with cancer patients and it's in patches and when we first started to see that now in the criminal courts we saw it for people who were taken the patches you know however they got possession of whether that was legally and then they were you know sourcing it from those legal prescriptions and and and delivering it to others but the first case I ever saw of it again this was probably two thousand eleven or twelve was an individual who had patches that have been prescribed to a cancer patient who was with the body of hills and they were getting high and he put those patches on his back and it causes death and ultimately I think ended up charging that individual with introduction of a controlled substance into the body of another which is one of the criminal offenses that's on the books. And are calling to the penitentiary for that that was the first time I've ever encountered Bentonville the guy was trying to get high the police the patches on and ultimately he died in again that's kind of what we're seeing all over but to answer questions we initially saw it in the patches and kind of the the legally prescribed means but now we're seeing it come over from China it's coming through the mail it's coming across the border it's coming in pill form You know it is represented to be some other substance but actually I spent no appeal that without knowing it so we're seeing it now not from the. Been sourced primarily from the legal prescription side of things but actually from China and and cross the border. Represents like you're recognized for a question thank you the director going the other there's no one that's missing in here and you may not seen in studies so far but that's course and all of you is there been any in the state that you know of. Representative not that I know of I know there's been some on our borders around West Memphis that we've seen so far but I don't believe in and and I know the crime labs here can probably testify better that than I can but not that I've seen okay full of manager you're recognized for a follow up could I add to that represent Gazaway okay go ahead ma'am I'm sorry I'm so sorry my name's Ashley bell and I'm a I'm a prosecutor I have an attorney at the prosecutor Carter's office and here on behalf of the prosecuting attorney's association just as a follow up to a director lands that I do you are definitions we did meet with the crime lab in our definitions would include carfentanil as well to the weight as defined should including cover that that they're here if you need any testimony from them as well okay no thank you thank you ma'am we know do know Kerr said bill is much more deadly than fentanyl which is very deadly so thank you with the. Richey Hudson are you good okay any other questions. Seeing no other questions we do have. A couple of individuals who signed up to speak for the bill. Katie Kelly. I. Okay we think they left all right Stacey James. Stacey James I don't see other. Yes ma'am if you'll just have a seat and identify yourself for the record then you may make your statement. Thank you I'm Cathy McConnell. I'm here today to speak because my son died of a fentanyl overdose I want to read something to you so you'll put a face to this horrible drug it's impossible to capture a person and individuality especially someone whose adult life was largely defined by drug addiction to some Matthew was just an attic when people saw his addiction they stop seeing Matthew. The truth is that Matthew was a caring loving and living be struggling mightily with his demons. Right to enter the world I won't go through all that. Outside of school Matthew focused on guitar reading and wood working. And high school Matthew experimented with prescription drugs. Primarily oxy cotton. It told him I can make you feel accepted I can make you feel all right. I can make you feel worthy I can make you feel loved finally it only told him I can make you feel nothing and make you feel like everything will be okay. His family and friends watches addictions deal the best parts of this line. That the fault this brief but lost the battle in August of two thousand ninety. It. We never expected diction to kill those familiar to us there's a dangerous idea that drug addicts or a whole separate category of people. The truth is that there is no other kind of people. People would never suspect. Matthew McConnell the starting linebacker but the truth is that there's no other kind of people there are only people and all of us know someone whose life is vulnerable to addiction now Matthew died of a fentanyl overdose he was a heroin addict. I wanted to state a little bit about what I do now because of the journey I've been on with Matthew since he was fourteen he died when he was thirty three I now work at the Pulaski County sheriff's office and run of a department called a re entry department I work with individuals who are addicts. And I went to my units this morning I have men and women and in my men's unit I have thirty two men and of the thirty two nine R. fennel Latics. Of the twenty nine women I have in my unit seven Arkansas Latics. So it's here it's now we need to do something. Mr cop thank you so much and I apologize for not being able to read your name please okay I I kinda knew which may. and I apologize for not getting your name right but we appreciate your testimony today members are there any questions I see no questions thank you so much for being here welcome. Mister James Stacey James. James you're recognized thank you. I appreciate your time at my name is Stacy James and I've just written a small statement here because I have a tendency to rattle so I'm going to stick to my notes I am co director of the coalition which is a coalition of parents who have lost their children to avert as before I begin my statement it is worth noting that not all of those parents had children that were addicts some of these parents had children that were young and foolish. And their first overdose was there last. It's not my intent to elicit sympathy from any of you I'm but I'm gonna tell you why I sit in front of you and it's because but not killed my twenty two year old son. In March of two thousand nineteen. It killed him. I'm you know you you didn't know Hey again so you don't know how incredibly intelligent and creative he was you don't know that he was a natural born leader you don't know that he went to an international leadership conference in Washington DC. You don't know that he excelled on the football field. You don't know that he volunteered his time with severely mentally and physically disabled children you don't know that he never met a stranger or that he would give you the shirt off his back. You don't know that he was an international missionary. Or that he was in the US navy and have the distinction of being on a submarine. He also had severe anxiety and depression. You don't know Hagen but I guarantee you each one of you know someone that I just described. We do a lot of things in our efforts to raise awareness to the drug epidemic we comfort grieving families and we try very very hard to make our voices heard to the dangers for this generation that is coming in behind us one of the things that we do is pay for funeral. It is a horrifically beautiful honor to be contacted by grieving mother. To say I have to get my child out of the hospital morgue we have to get him buried the funeral has to be paid for in advance can you help us. We're getting more and more of those calls we're getting more and more of the calls appearance saying my child is dead is toxicology report her toxicology report says Fenton all what is it. We are spending more and more time explaining what this poisonous. Just this week Sunday evening actually I got a phone call from sure would mall who lost her twenty two two year old daughter the daughter still lives at home both parents lives at home she was in her childhood bed and what I'm about to tell you is startling but this is the reality of Arkansas. This young girl's little brother found her at nine thirty in the morning. And screamed for his parents who went running in. They immediately started CPR on this twenty two year old woman. For twenty minutes her mother tried desperately to save her life what she didn't know was that she had been dead for nine hours. A body that is amended for nine hours is ice cold and it is rigid and this is the trauma of fennel this is what Arkansas parents are dealing with it's not the first time I've heard that story. There's one thing that I feel very strongly needs to be. Conveyed to you all this is not an addict's problem. This is a community problem because what we're seeing is young people tenth grade eleventh grade twelfth grade fifteen sixteen seventeen year old they're no longer breaking an imam does liquor cabinet they're breaking into their medicine cabinets. And that is a quantity that is controlled by the people that received those prescriptions of these children are then going to the streets and to strangers and when they think they're getting the same exam axe that their mom took for anxiety or Percocet the dad took for a sports injury or even little brothers at a raw they're getting fed and all. These are innocent kids. good kids that have made bad decisions. Especially now. In the wake of cobit we have a whole generation of kids that are struggling with anxiety just like my Hagen and depression just like my Hagen. They're gonna find these pills. So what I want to say to you all is this. I so strongly support this bill because I see day in and day out and it is traumatic for me. To hear the stories. Because see for every funeral I pay for I'm reminded of the funeral that I attended the funeral that I planned and I'm reminded. That with these two hands. In a family cemetery that was established in eighteen fifty. With the dark that my brother pulled out of the whole. I placed my son's navy blue marble earned in the ground and I raked that are over it I wouldn't let anybody else help me because I was taking so long it was my responsibility I buried in. It took about three minutes which I understand is about the same time that it took federal to kill him. It's worth noting Hagen was not trying to use it now. He was trying to use cocaine has toxicology report shows that it was not his intent. So the problem isn't the ones that know they're using it the problems are the ones that don't know they're getting it. It's instant death. It's instant death so I just I implore you all to think about the Hagens in your life to think about what we've all said about the struggle and the casualties is not just the children that die it's the parents. I need your help because I'm tired of paying for these funerals and this bill I promise you will save countless lives thank you for your time. Thank you Mr James for your testimony you for being here today we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill represent Gazaway you're recognized close for your bill. Thank you madam chair the Committee at. I think that it it's been clear of the testimony with a serious problem these drugs are. As was. Stated one of the issues with federal is not that people are taking it in a pure form anymore much like when they got it from the patches but there are other drugs that are being laced with fentanyl and when the crime lab who was here and that they didn't get a chance to speak but When the crime lab does toxicology reports with the medical examiner's office does autopsies and they do the toxicology what they're finding is spent now in addition to other substances because many times there other substances that are being laced with fentanyl and just as was testified to people don't realize that they're doing it but it's causing their death because it takes such a minuscule amount of fentanyl to to kill a person again an illustration drug director lane when we met earlier had poured the sweet low package out. And a sweet low package is enough to kill five hundred people and as I said earlier a hundred and twenty pounds that was seized in Nebraska fentanyl was enough to kill over twenty million people that's every man woman and child in the state of Arkansas and and essentially the southeastern United States. This is incredibly potent it's incredibly dangerous and it needs to be treated differently than we treat other drugs the same can be said of here one which is my understanding records seeing a resurgence of in Arkansas so I think that this is a timely bill it's important bill and with that I'll make a motion to pass and would appreciate a good vote thank you members we have a motion to do pass on the floors or any discussion of the motion seeing none all in favor of the motion say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill thank you manager thank you committee members we have one less bill on our agenda this morning let's take up Senate bill three oh seven represent the slate for you ready to present your bill. Members there is a financial impact statement. Major marks are you here to speak for the bill what you come on down and we'll see if we can. Get you in. Represent a slight you're recognized thank you madam chair thank you Committee. But today we. This was brought to the Senator Hendren and me from the Arkansas state police due to the amount of the fleeing vehicles of with that as of up from the last four years and it's become in with the or population studies coming very serious and very badly. The twenty officers and the general public in the full year the the days of the dukes of Hazzard running and all the fun is over with we don't have the population we're just way too low to to allow these actions who won and what it changes in the lit major kind of go into the changes that they've asked for read the had been amended on the on the Senate in with the believe Mr Rosenzweig and so the mothers not wholeheartedly agreeing with the got to a point where they could work with this but major if you like to search. Fast three years. In the intrude bay which encompasses Central Arkansas we've seen over an eighty three percent increase in those what we're saying those vehicle pursuits or extreme high speeds of the extreme indifference to human of value of love life in the way they're driving. And also in some unfortunate cases we're seeing injury to innocent parties. Of what this bill does is it it doesn't change the basic elements of of the statute to fling a vehicle statute it just simply enhances those penalties for those three particular areas that I just mention that we're seeing a problem with. we're hopeful with those enhancements in the penalties that'll service deterrent to help try to reduce those is represented select mention we have consulted with Jeff Rosen swag and made some adjustments to the original bill. Of we would like to note sheriffs association chiefs of police association also support this bill. NO one really stressed that this does not change the ability the officer to charge someone with misdemeanor fleeing in a vehicle it does not change the. and just to to explain if you if you had so you had a constituent heather had the clouds and they weren't aware that a law enforcement officer was behind them with their lights and siren on there is a traffic charge already on the books that we could you license for deal to merge the vehicle so we there is that is offered discretion on the I'll be happy to entertain any questions you may have they have. Members are there any questions. The no questions major marks is the only individual who signed up to speak for the bill so with that represent the Slape are recognized you too close for your bill. Thank you madam chair of the clothes for the bill in a move do pass. Members represent a slight disclose furs bill has made a motion to do pass is there any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you have passed your members we are now we'll go we are adjourned we'll be back after session ten minutes after session for