Judiciary Committee- House

Or kind of to the what the committee had requested in beginning with the limit on it It fifty dollars that we can never go over that amount of I appreciate a good vote. Members are there any questions. Do we have a motion to concur in the amendment I see a motion to concur in the amendment is there any discussion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed. Motion carries we have concurred members have. Representative Wardlaw in the chair and before he's kind of like an ant on a hot day scurrying around so we will keep you in sure let's moved his next bill house bill fifteen ninety eight representative Wardlaw you're recognized thank you madam chair this was not as easy. Just being honest so Right now in the state of Arkansas state parks and federal parks allow you to carry open or concealed all this bill does is a line this state law with those same statutes that's all it does there's been some issues brought to us about you L. are playing baseball or a sport on a park Graham it's been brought to my attention that when they do that contract annually they can stipulated that contractor faller collegiate rules which means they will not be able to code during those games so with that I'd be happy to take any questions. Members are there any questions. Hang on just a second we need to check the sign in sheet. All right we do have someone who signed up to speak against the bill Blake Gary this year if you'll come forward Jennifer yourself for the record and you'll be recognized to speak against the bill. Thank you madam chair of the members of the committee Blake Gary legal counsel Arkansas Municipal League and I always appreciate the opportunity to be here to speak on behalf of the cities and towns that just kind of express just their real concern with this and I think takes or might be a little obvious in that it just opens up allows open carry and municipal parks as representative Wardlaw stated it didn't at national level national parks you can open carry and I believe the same is true for state parks however we're looking at our municipal parks national parks Yellowstone for example it's thirty four hundred square miles it traverses three states this smoky mountain sector versus Tennessee and North Carolina so there's consistency that needs to be had there traversing multiple states and having well being in the same park. I think the biggest park we have in the state of Arkansas is burns park address felt one square mile most of our parks consist of just flat grassland that you can see across the just contain playgrounds and I'll splash pads have become huge and this bill would allow the open carry in possession of a firearm or deadly weapon not only at or at municipal parks and along with that includes so baseball and softball complexes our kids are playing with leads and families are there to watch them and that. But I think that sums up my comments that's a concern to cities and towns and I take any questions. Members are there any questions for Mister Gary. See no questions thank you Mr very for your testimony today Graham the next individual we have to speak against the bill is chief Keith Humphrey Chief Humphry you're recognized come forward and identify yourself in. Can everyone hear me. Good afternoon Chairman and members. I am keep Humphrey on the police chief for the city of little rock Thirty four years of law enforcement experience in early fourteen of those those as a law enforcement executive. And my concerns is that I just kinda want to paint a picture that. Families like to go to parks with their children. People like to go to parks to exercise picnics. Have a good time relax. Same thing with ball parks people want to go in a relaxed they want to watch their kids play or they want to watch their teams play they want to be in a position not to have to worry about any excessive gun play. I get it I understand that there is a big concern about protecting each other self defense I get that. But you know the main focus is I don't think people should have to go to a park knowing. There's a bill that allows someone to carry a gun and that person could be reckless or careless or we don't know what that person's intent we already have enough people who have bad intent when they go to these locations and so we don't need to have more guns. The peoples sociability of so this can occur. We want to make sure that it's a police chief will make sure that our our citizens go to apart we've we've had. Two. Shootings in the last two weeks of parks we have one where a sweet little ten year old girl was was murdered and we had a innocent person killed another since our shot at another part. Those are individuals that just had weapons. Both were to build weapons that had no business that part of the weapons that. If they weren't there those individuals had not been there we possibly wouldn't be talking about a ten year old's death or a of a person who was injured. I'm all for second amendment a truly believe that people do have a right by just believe there's certain locations that guns should not be. And I think that we are. This bill is passed I think it puts the citizens of more harm the not. Thank you. All members are there any questions. Seeing no questions thank you for your testimony today we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representive Wardlaw you're recognized close for your bill thank you madam chair. So you heard it here today it's already this way and state and federal parks they confirm that the problem is we just passed a bill stand your ground and in that bill it said you had to be lawfully present so if you're at that park that night when this little girl was shot. You wouldn't have a way to protect yourself under law today is a legal matter. Going forward you would have that if this bill passed I ask the reason I'm here on this bill he just said it you need to relax that's true you need to relax need to feel safe you can't feel safe there today he just testified that two people getting shot in a park he just told you it's happening and there's no way to protect yourself in those parks today No Way. I don't put a police officer on every corner that mile square and burns part. No they're not it's not cost effective. But it is cost effective for us to protect ourselves by being able to carry a gun in those places and relax with our family at a park and with that I'd appreciate a good vote thank you madam chair. Members represent Wardlaw has closed pers bill what are the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass by represent the Smith any discussion of the motion. All in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it the motion carries. This call the roll. Representive Ferguson. Representative Ferguson. Representative Ferguson is not voting representative flowers. Representative flowers votes No representative Nicks. Representative next representative Nicks is not voting. Representative Richmond. Representative Richmond votes yes representative Cavenaugh. Representative Cavenaugh votes yes representative Gazaway. Representative Gazaway votes yes representive berry. Representative Barry votes yes representative Crawford. Representive Crawford votes yes representative Scott. Representative Scott votes No representative Slape. Representative Slape votes yes representative Clowney. Representive Clowney votes No representative Cooper. Representative Cooper votes yes representative Richardson. Representative Richardson votes No representative Collins. Representive Collins votes No representative McCollum. Representative McCollum votes No representative Hudson representive Hudson. Representative Hudson as nonvoting representative under would. Representive Underwood votes yes representative Smith. Representative Smith votes yes. Motion carries you've passed your bill thank you madam chair committee. Members next. Bill we will be taking up will be house bill white house bill ten nineteen representative right is that the one you tell me you're going to amend. Okay. You're recognized a representative for a to present house bill ten nineteen. House bill ten nineteen. Thank you madam chairman basically today I. Stand before you just to establish Arkansas as a sanctuary state what we're we're on house bill ten nineteen representive have no management dozens zero well that's what I call is that the one you want passed over ten nineteen right. Members were passing over house bill ten nineteen been amended ma'am. Members are going to House Bill thirteen ninety house bill thirteen ninety yes ma'am. Today a I'm here with you just establishing Arkansas as a sanctuary state. And Basically what we're trying to do is Thank you for all the folks in the State of Arkansas by law by constitution of have the right to bear arms. Pretty simple and if there is a situation that may arise from the federal level that will be passed down. And the Arkansas General Assembly will have to deal with that once it gets here. What is this point Arkansas. Would be a state of its own under sanctuary law. With the the right to bear arms. Members are there any questions to represent have. Representative Richardson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair representative right to your right. The I mean we we already have the right to bear arms what would what do we need this. We need this because. Arkansas to itself needs to take care of the situations that are occur within our state. And I feel that that we should be the ones that actually determine what is right or what is wrong. And like say we are already constitutionally able to bear arms. But I I think that Arkansas nature of a In a position where we can interpret our own laws. Thank you. Members any other questions. Seeing no further questions we have no No one to sign no one signed up to speak for against the bill representative right you're recognized to close for the bill yes ma'am thanks that's all that's all ma'am thank you. The rise close for the bill what are the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no. Motion carries. Next bill is house bill sixteen forty six. House Bill sixteen forty six representative class. Represent cloud you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you madam chairman thank you committee I appreciate you passing out of those two sections of code for the committee members with the chairs permission I would ask that assistant Attorney General Adam Jackson Jackson be allowed to join me at the table. Mister Jackson you can come forward. Represent glad you're recognized to present your bill thank you ma'am. Ladies and gentleman I want to give you the what the why and then the not on this bill because I know that there's been a tremendous amount of misinformation that's been out there so let's start with the what. Arkansas code annotated five dash one dash one oh two deals with definitions of the Arkansas criminal code in five dash one dash one oh two thirteen B. one a in the code states As used in. Five dash ten dash one oh one five dash ten dash one oh five person in quotes also includes an unborn child in utero at any stage of development. Please understand that's already in code five dash ten dash one oh one is the section of criminal code that deals with capital murder five dash ten dash one of five is this section of criminal code that deals with negligent homicide. House Bill sixteen fourteen adds to code five dash four dash dash six oh for which you have there in front of you to the already existing code of definitions in five dash one dash one oh two. What about the one one why are we even going through this in November of twenty fifteen cherish faith all right informed her boyfriend Brad hunter Smith that she was pregnant with his child. Red hunter Smith immediately begin to plan the murder of cherry shall bright enlisted the help of two colleagues to carry out the gruesome murder of cherish in December less than one month after he had been informed that she was pregnant. Josh well of Allen brown and accomplish cherries to a field where Smith and another accomplice were hiding behind some trees waiting to ambush her. As she exited the vehicle. Smith cow Wardley shot cherish in the back with a crossbow bolt. He did not kill her as she struggled and attempted to escape he took a baseball bat and struck her twice in the back of the head crushing your cranium in killing her. The trio then transported churches body to an area behind Smith's home and proceeded to bury her in a shallow grave. On December the tenth twenty fifteen. Cherishes body was recovered by investigators. I'm humbled and privileged to have cherishes mom you're with us today and you'll hear from her a little bit later. In the resulting trial bread Smith was convicted of kidnapping abuse of a corpse and capital murder he was sentenced to death. In twenty eighteen Smith made an appeal regarding some of the aggravating factors that were presented during his trial the appeal was decided on December the tenth twenty twenty the death sentence was overturned. Associate justice Courtney ray Hudson writing for the majority stated that the unborn child could not be used as an aggravating circumstance since it did not meet Arkansas general assembly's definition of a in quotes person. So. She. Squarely put the blame on us. She further stated The question presented to this court is not whether Smith committed a particularly heinous crime or whether he deserves death for his transgressions rather the question we must answer is whether the General Assembly properly provided for the unborn child definition of person. To be applied when an aggravating factor in capital murder sentencing is being considered. The answer is no. The legislature did not permit the section five dash one dash one oh two thirteen B. definition of a person to apply in the determination of an aggravating factor for Capital murder sentencing in fact the General Assembly specifically restricted the use of this definition. Justice Rhonda K. would who cast a dissenting vote stated. I submit it is absurd and and harmonious to hold that when the General Assembly to find a person to include an unborn child for a death in a capital murder statute that it did not intend that definition to apply to death of a person in the capital murder aggravating factors. That's why we're here today as part of the General Assembly what this bill does not do. There's been a tremendous amount of misinformation concerning this bill on Facebook Twitter Instagram apologize I'm sure this committee's been inundated I know I have a recent news article stated and I quote. Legislation filed last week would amend the definition of person. In the state's criminal code to include unborn children potentially subjecting abortion providers to murder charges unquote. Ladies and gentleman that is one hundred percent. Incorrect and false. That's why you have a copy of five dash one dash one oh two oh one should be able to see it for yourself this already listed definitions of the criminal code. The code states that this does not apply. If you look at five dash one dash one oh two thirteen B. two. Just go over that it does not apply. An act that causes the death of an unborn child in utero if the act was committed during a legal abortion to which the woman consented including an abortion performed to remove an ectopic pregnancy rather nonviable pregnancy when the embryo was not going to develop further be an act that is committed pursuant to a usual and customary standard of medical practice during diagnostic testing or therapeutic treatment an act that is committed in the course of medical research experimental medicine or acting necessary to save the life or preserve the health of the woman D. assisted reproductive technology activity procedure treatment Ian Act occurring before transferred to the uterus of the woman of an embryo created through intro in vitro fertilization. And then three nothing in this subdivision thirteen be shall be construed to allow the charging or conviction of a woman with any criminal offense in the death of her unborn child in utero and then following. The definition of person is already in code this bill has nothing to do with the definition of personal. H. B. sixteen forty six clarifies the law concerning concerning five dash four dash six oh four four which states the person in the commission of the capital murder knowingly created a great risk of death to a person here's the word again to a person other than the victim or caused the death of more than one person in the same criminal episode. This bill I know I'm being redundant but I know you've received the false information this bill is not about the definition of person in the Arkansas criminal code but rather as stated in the trial the placement. Of the already existing legal definition and aggravating circumstances. With that I'll ask you like to make it comes. Okay what let's see if we have any questions first okay members are there any questions. Represent college you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair and I appreciate the explanation that cloud so I guess my question is really more specific to the aggravating circumstances statute and how this would apply it says in for that the person in commission of the capital murder knowingly created a great risk of death to a person one of other than the victim which is one of two potential aggravating circumstances but an unborn child assisting from a person who was born we have a a much greater sensitivity to a risk of death let's say because something that would have very little impact on a person outside of the womb could have a big impact on a person under this inside the room so it is it potentially the case that this wasn't intended to apply here for a reason that maybe in fact we don't want this to be an aggravating circumstance as the legislature had you know done basically that's that's the current law. J. two questions in the comments two two things that I would like to give you one is. I don't know back then exactly what the thought was I don't guess any of us here do except this man that helped create the the law the second thing I would like to dress as the thirty two year obstetricians in private practice. The baby's encapsulant encapsulated in a fluid sac. Does a tremendous amount to absorb any blunt trauma. Now obviously any sharp traumas going to get through that but it would as you said with any other person so as far as just blunt trauma the vehicle accident or something like that or just being even hit the belly of those babies are very very very well. Representative Clowney you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so I'm reading represent because I I really do appreciate that clarification I do still have one question I'm reading you know what you just read that says an act that causes the death of an unborn child in utero if the act was committed during a legal abortion that is exempt from the statute didn't we just passed a law that made all abortion illegal in Arkansas. Yes except for. In the life of the mother we did pass that law of this this is the law prior to that would you address a representative Connie that this this this change has nothing to do with with abortion the what happened here it is a bit of a legal absurdity was created when the supreme court made its decision and and Smith versus state it's a situation where. By Brett hunter Smith could have been charged for the murder of the fetus and then use the most the death of the mother could have been used as an aggravating circumstance and that would be fine in the law but the fact that the mother was the the the charging you know the the victim and then the the fetus was used as the aggravating circumstance of the Supreme Court took issue with us so what we're doing here is just simply adding. Five six six oh four so the person is specifically reference for aggravating circumstances section really is it has this has no bearing on abortion. Follow up. You're recognized for follow up thank you and of course I understand that that that the situation that you're trying to address and I have compassion for and agree with that move I just really want to get super precise clarification on what the law says so I'm looking at these definitions here and I read Capital murder was committed against a person whom the defendant knew or reasonably should have known I'm on the very very back so ten and be reasonably should have known it was especially vulnerable to the attack because the person was twelve years of age or younger I guess help me understand how if we change that definition of person to include anything after conception we're not catching their everybody who not only performs abortions but who maybe provides access to plan B. or anything that could be argued aye aye causing abortion because it was done after after conception are we opening all of those people up to capital murder charges and if not can you I know that's not the intent but can you point to me in the law as to why we are not thanks. Yes representative council actually if if your concerns are actually taken care of in the law as it is because we can't actually charge abortion providers with murder under these statutes that we're talking about here. What all this does is allows that fee is to be considered in terms of the aggravating circumstances so in order to get to that aggravating circumstance you have to have a capital murder charge to begin with so you eat. This is the under the law as it is now they're not charge for that. I can make a comment maybe are you referring. Is a complicating the the the factor on the bill that we just recently passed is that is that what you're inserting into the the current code here that I've given you a handout for. Manser manager. yes so you're right because there is this carve out for legal abortions legal abortions won't exist after that law goes into effect and so I'm wondering how that impacts abortions that are currently legal that won't be at least you know in the interim until that low is deemed income. I understand what you said okay I'll let you go into I just think I understand that that you're you're wanting to apply the recent legislation to what what is in the criminal code right now is that right okay so how how would that fit into the current criminal code How the fit into the I mean in the the code considering the abortion To it in order to even get to to where the search the statute is applicables we would have to get to capital murder in the first place and even under this new statute I don't believe that abortion is is charges Capital murder. But. Just like said this all the statute does it is affects the aggravating circumstances so in order to ET like Senator even for this thing even come into play you have to have a capital murder charge it may be easier to explain kind of how the how trial works in the situation for a capital murder charge you have the you have to meet all of the elements of capital murder first and then once the jury finds man guilty of capital murder it goes over to sentencing and the prosecutor has to prove certain aggravating circumstances exist and it in red hunter Smith what we're trying to we're trying to fix here the Supreme Court said that the additional death of that fetus can't be a. Can't be a determining factor can't be an aggravating factor and that's what we're trying to fix is just simply to say yes that the the death of that fetus is an aggravating factor we think it was simply just an oversight in the original Drafting of this in the descent certainly seem to have taken that view because it's otherwise it's just simply reading absurdity into the law and we're trying to fix that that absurdity or that ambiguity that's helping created. Representative Collins you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair so let me just ask this because again I'm trying to parse the difference in how for would be applied for a person who's in the world verses an in the womb okay knowingly created a great risk of death does the person have to know that the person was pregnant basically because obviously the early stage of pregnancy it's impossible to tell visually is that knowingly. Because the harm to the to the mother or do they have to know that there is a fetus in there in order for this aggravating circumstance to apply. Representive Collins the that's really gonna have to be an argument that's going to be played out by the prosecutors and and it's the every trial is different every the facts of every case is different and I and I know that that's probably not very satisfactory answer I realize that but the every case that's going to affect specific issue and this is. A. This is something that really is going to be debated enveloped a trial and through the court system but this is really just a to create you know make a simple fix and it's not. We're not really going beyond you know trying to fix what the issue that arose in in Brett hunter Smith that case. Well I I do think it matters though because I think that in as current law applies you would know that you're causing a risk of death or death to the person because you you know you would see them they would be there in this case that we're contemplating adding you might not have any knowledge that you would know you're doing something to them either and so the whole point of the aggravating circumstances that it it makes it worse does it really make it worse if you don't know that the person is pregnant there's no knowledge there because we have that knowledge requirement. And it's our job to. Specified what is the court's job to interpret it but we're here to make it make it clear some. I would submit representative Collins that. The word person is in the statute now and it's not define. And so that's that's one it is far as five dash four dash six oh four it's it's not defined in that five day for day six oh four four that's what we're trying to fix we're trying to put the definition of the criminal code word person in two five dash four dash six oh four four we're trying to define define that word person which is not defined right now so would be up to the court right this second as it was last year. Actually a representative because I think I misunderstood your question the first time around having the the the language knowingly created the risk is knowingly being in there they they would have to know that the person was pregnant. I apologize for not having for some room represent guess what you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair. Again I'm I'm just trying to get some clarification also my understanding is that person is already defined for for an unborn child for purposes of the criminal code when you're trying to determine whether or not to bring a murder charge and that is separate and apart from one this bill proposes to do which is to simply add unborn child to the aggravating circumstances part of of the statutes with regard to capital murder cases that a correct summation of that. This bill seeks to do. A representative as well yes and and that distinction is precisely what the court latched on to in the original definition of the person statute it defines some for the. Person for the purpose of the the murder statute to the homicide statutes of one oh one through one oh five and what the court looked at was the fact that the legislature specifically listed those statutes but did not list the other and they said bill because the legislature did not specifically also list the aggravating person statute than they intended for it not to apply and that's what we're trying to correct years that oversight. Follow up you're recognized and when prosecutors are looking at definition of person for purposes of considering a criminal charge or unborn child. The standard of viability still a factors into prosecutors decisions I mean that's why we don't see and I understand the the way the exceptions are in the law now but I mean the idea that someone would be charged for taking birth control for instance or for plan B. or a legal abortion these are things that are already covered as exceptions under the law prosecutors look at viability standards that are currently set in the law with regard to those things and those would all be considerations in the decision to charge of murder and I then that's existing law which I think is beyond this discussion but for people who want to confuse the issues I think it's important to clear that up can you help with that. Yes a representative presently skews me representative Gazaway. I think maybe pointing back to the the best way to answer that may be pointing back to the absurdity that was created by the case itself. He could have been charged for the murder of of the baby of the fetus in this case and. At four Capital murder but it's just the the the absurdities created that it's a per the fetus is considered a person for the purpose of the actual charging of capital murder in the first place but not a person of when viewed in terms of an aggravating circumstance and that's. I hope that answers your question to to kind of clear up the confusion with that all we're trying to do is to say that the same fetus the same baby is. Counts as both a person for the purpose of charging and for the purpose of aggravating circumstance. Members are there any other questions. Seeing no other questions we do have some individuals who signed up in this regard Karen of music the signed up to speak against the bill miss music you like to come forward and identify yourself. This music. Not seeing this music we will turn to Brenda Belinda I skew skews me Belinda Ashcraft who signed up to speak for the bill this Ashcraft. Session craft you're recognized please identify yourself for the record. Belinda Ashcraft on the mother of cherish all right. Who was in the murder case and. I just I don't know I want to start by saying that I have heard what people are saying aye. The plan being the abortion to me and my opinion I'm not as smart as these guys the eighteenth they gave consent to do it they did my daughter didn't give consent for her baby to not be born. That was my grand child whom we were excited about it mind grand child already had close picked out already had names picked out. Shared memory and a some blazes border girl. My son was excited to be in on goal which shall never be now. I don't understand how and a murder case we weren't even allowed to mention the baby per se because of the bill or whatever. And Now he's overturned his death penalty. And to me I don't understand that because. How does he how does he do the when the whole reason he took her life was because she was pregnant and she wouldn't abort when he tried to pay for their work I mean he knew she was pregnant I mean how can we not fix this to where. If there is another circumstance like this it may not help my circumstance for my daughters my families and how we suffer in Maine every year. Every holiday every birthday I think about my grand baby just as much as I do my daughter so that was a life to me. And it needs to be fixed. Mr Ashcraft thank you for coming today thank you for your testimony your what. Thank you representative class you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you madam chair and committee. I just wanna be super clear as I can H. B. sixteen fourteen will clarify the law that the Arkansas Supreme Court. Essentially ask for the Arkansas General Assembly to do they ask us to address this issue because it had not been addressed before. It's going to clarify the law related to the Arkansas code annotated five dash four dash six oh four four. That's all we're we're not making a new definition. We're not criminalizing CSE some woman for their own behavior. As you as you can rating in the code that's handed out. If prosecutors choose. To use the statute of aggravating circumstances in the criminal case then the law will be consistent and clear it won't be up to each individual court to interpret. As for the Arkansas Supreme Court it will be clear. Next time it will be clear that the Arkansas General Assembly has permitted the definition of the person to be applied when an aggravating factor in capital murder sentencing is being considered. Thank you very much. Members represented cloud is close for his bill what are the wishes of the committee we have a motion to do pass there's the is there any discussion on the motion. All in all in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it the motion carries congradulations you have passed your bill members let's turn to the next bill. Will be Senate bill three oh eight representing fight you're recognized Senator Hammer. The two of you all get to the table of fight over who is. Rings the Bill. First let's turn to Senate bill three oh eight. Representative fight you're recognized present the bill. Thank you madam chair I have with me today Slane county attorney will Gruber and also Senator Hammer this is your bill is bill I think Senator Hammer is going to present the bill today Senator Hammer you're recognized thank you madam chairman I deferred who's RepresentativeHouse seen or I mean representative fight scene I'm in the house chamber matter referred back to him. You bet and then when you all can't decide I'm gonna make you arm wrestle here in the middle of will will go with who wins but senator Hammer I bet and today we're gonna let you win so you're recognized thank you madam chair. Europe Senator Hammer thank you just trying to be nice here of so what this bill would do members of the. I think I turned you off hit the button there we go thank you madam chair of. I'll hit the high points and if we could have will get down into the weeds manager if that's right what this will do is allow a victim who has is a of a victim of sexual assault to be able to request within forty eight hours that HIV test be taken so as to give peace of mind and also to expedite the time frame which medication be given as some medication is necessary to be given within that time frame there are certain situations have occurred where through no fault of the prosecutor just overloaded schedules and busy that per a victim was not able to get that HIV test because prosecutor did requested what this will do is put the victim in the position that they can requested one thing I'd like to be mindful of in the unfortunately in the society that we live today that sexual assault happens both male and female and so we want to be able to give you call round to everybody and that's what is intended to do manager about you'll to will to be able to fill in any blanks yes thank you after. Yes and thank you senator Hammer represent five per for sponsors bill thank you for allowing me to be here to testify about this so a state your name for the record please yes will grow from the same county civil attorney some background on this bill is that we received proximally nine hundred thirty thousand dollar grant from department justice for improving criminal justice responses domestic violence dating violence sexual assault and stalking grant program from and we were notified that if we didn't amend this law sixteen eighty two one oh one to the language that we've amended to that we would lose out on five percent so roughly forty six thousand dollars and so uh we've been working on this a while we worked with defense lawyers who brought some concerns we mended based on their concerns we've we've been in contact with folks that impacted by this for a real world example unfortunately weren't able to make it here today but as Senator Hammer mentioned to the this is this is solely for a situation where for the specific crimes that that affected one I'll be authorized to request an HIV test. Members are there any questions. Representative college you're recognized for a question. Thanks at and I'm sorry you know you may set and I'm just trying to understand under current law is it only a court they can request for convicted requested now I just want me through a little bit about what the law is and with the with the difference would be yes Sir right now only the prosecutor can requested and so the Department justice said that our state law has to be had to be amended to allow the victim to requested as well. And so doesn't impact what evidence would be provided. there any court case or anything like that it just would provide information to the victim. Okay. Any other questions members saying no other questions the only individual we had signed up for is will Gruber and he's made his testimony so with that senator Hammer I will recognize you to close for your bill thank. Thank you ma'am shall be brief but as of Mr mentioned in the Senate Judiciary we had a young lady drive up from Texarkana because she was the unfortunate victim of being in the situation where she'd been sexually assaulted which a case has been of heard and the perpetrator has been convicted fortunately unfortunately it is that she could not get the HIV test because the prosecutor was just over loaded and that's no fault is just acknowledgment why this bill is necessary to get that they can that right and so would appreciate a good vote on behalf of the chair in the committee. Member senator Hammer is close for the bill what are the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it motion carries you past your bill Gretchen Mr members of committee thank you Hammer while I have you at the table let's move to your next bill. Let's turn to Senate bill four seventeen. Senate bill four seventeen and senator Hammer you are recognized to present your bill. represent Richmond are you going to percent. No madam chair appears so that both of us will know what this bill actually is do we are there for moral support Senator Hammer is that correct that's correct all right Senator Hammer you're recognized thank you measure thank you senator the record represented Richmond for being here owe him apologize bills give him a she done this now to get it to him so a public acknowledgement of that and respect for him the bill basically what it does is that if a person and this aligns with federal law want to get that out there first and foremost that this bill actually aligns with what federal law allows just our state law does not allow it and so what this bill would do is allow for a person that is convicted the antitrust violation or unlawful business practice to be able to lost lawfully possess a firearm under state law I had a constituent who approached me who had been convicted of a anti trust violation who is not able to get his fire arm by state standard but he could get it by federal standard and so what this does is just open it up so that by state standard he could be able to get or she could be able to get other permit in the event they were convicted of anti trust violation I did run this by of the. A C.. Segro ACRC thank you I did right by them and we ran it up the flagpole with the feds and the sub aligns with what met their standards. And without be glad answering questions manager members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill senator Hammer you're recognized close for your bill thank you madam chair of members this is not involve anybody of a violent crime or anything of that nature is just somebody the committed antitrust violation and so I would appreciate a good vote. Member center Hammer is closed for his bill representative Richmond you're recognized motion do pass we have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion of the motion. All in favor of the motion do pass please say aye any opposed say no motion carries you past your bill the manager thank you the members committee Senator Hammer Hammer we're two Senate bill four ninety four thank you madam chair of I was presented with this bill and asked to run it two and it it particularly some of the schools just give an idea that would affect you so be you but basically and other schools but the Senate bill four ninety four make sure all certified law enforcement officers including university police have the same protection under the law including both public and private institutions of higher education and so but man I'm sure that is what the bill does And I'll be glad to answer any questions. Representative Cavenaugh you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair Senator Hammer I just have a question about one hour including private institutions. Thank you representative Cavenaugh because they for example like OB you and some of the other private institutions actually have law enforcement's just like some of the other state institutions like you've a a issue it's just that they're not afforded the same protections because our private institution these would have to and thank you for bringing a question of the forgot to mention this would apply to certified law enforcement and so they have met that regular standard of being certified in order to be able to afford a be afforded what this bill would of would give them the protection for thank you thank you. The representative called you're recognized for a question thank you mentored senator Hammer that actually goes at my question because it is I read it it says law enforcement agencies for and certified law enforcement officers employed by I'm less concerned about certified law enforcement officers and more about the law enforcement agencies which are separated out here this should since it be interpreted to read both because it looks like that way to me it's either law enforcement agencies are certified law enforcement officers would both be covered and they're describe separately My interpretation what it does represent colleges that it would cover The law enforcement agencies. I'm I'm kind being redundant in language but just for my thought processes law enforcement agencies for and certified law enforcement officers employed so for this to apply the protection to they would have to be a certified law enforcement officer working for law enforcement agency at a public institution. Thanks thank you. Members are there any other questions. Seeing no further questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill Senator Hammer you're recognized close for your bill thank you madam chair for those private institutions like Ouachita Baptist university I believe there's college over in Fort Smith that this would be beneficial to and other private institutions those individuals put their life on the line to protect our students I would appreciate a good vote so that we can protect them and the greatest time of need with that manager appreciated. Member senator Hammer is close for bill what are the wishes of the committee. I have a motion do pass by representative Ferguson answer any discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it the motion carries congradulations you have passed your bill thank you madam chair members committee and I appreciate your hospitality hope you'll have a great Easter weekend thank you thank you senator Hammer thank you for being here today. Members we are passing over Senate bill three hundred. When removing next to Senate bill four seventy four representative guess where you're recognized. Members there is a impact statement financial impact statement should be at your desk. If not it's on an absolute. Or on your. Represent guess what you're recognized. Thank you madam chair members before you should see senate bill four seventy four this is a bill that will address fertility fraud infertility abuse that will create to new criminal offenses again for fertility fraud infertility abuse. We're in a situation now where the law has not kept up with technology as our arm and medical advances I should say as there have been medical advances in the field of fertility we have seen some things occur around the country and I believe also sadly even in the state of Arkansas it's affected individuals in Arkansas where doctors who specialize in fertility treatment have use their own reproductive material without the consent of the patient. and what and and children of course have been conceived from that and one of the ways that this is becoming revealed it is through ancestry dot com and the different DNA testing that's now available even through the mail people are finding out that. When who they thought were their biological parents may not be and that in some cases sadly it's been the fertility doctors involved in the treatments and so. What this bill does And you'll see in section one it create it inserts this section regarding the statute of limitations and in that particular section it states that an action related to fertility treatment fraud may be commenced at any time this is consistent with several other sexual offenses that are found in the the statue imitation section including rape sexual assault first and second degree and incest those are criminal offenses that can be commenced at any time and so we say the same thing with respect to these fertility new fertility criminal offenses that they can be commenced at any time section two creates the new criminal offense of fertility treatment abuse and what what you see there is and basically in subsection B. a person commits fertility treatment abuse if the person is a healthcare provider who in the course of performing assisted reproduction procedure on a person knowingly uses on authorized human reproductive material and that's a Class B. felony that carries between five and twenty years in the Arkansas department of corrections and typically has a one six parole eligibility. Section three creates the new criminalists offense of fertility treatment fraud and so that's different from and I want to make a distinction here that is different from fertility treatment abuse which is what was created in the section just prior to that fertility treatment abuses we kind of look at this issue and I will say this is senator Beckham's bill but as we looked at the issue Texas for instance added at this type of offense of using an authorized reproductive material in a fertility or reproduction procedure they they put that in there sexual assault statute. And so we looked at doing that in Arkansas we looked at the sexual assault statutes and it really wasn't a good fit. And so we we created a new statute that would be similar to that and again we call that fertility treatment abuse. Next section fertility treatment fraud differs from that because it's based on the idea that someone is acting with the purpose to defraud someone undergoing a fertility treatment and there you can have there many different types of fertility treatments we know is there been the medical advances you're looking at surrogacy. Again there's this there's a good definition here infertility treatment pregnancy treatment surrogacy. And if someone with the purpose to defraud. I miss represents the identity of the person who donated or is donating human reproductive material there you know sperm or eggs and egg donation is a thing happens at a clinics up I believe there may be one Arkansas there's one and in Memphis to that I'm aware of same thing with a sperm donation of someone misrepresents the identity of who's doing that or the quality of that material that's fraud and that's a Class C. felony that occurred between tent three in ten years in the Arkansas department of corrections. That section three then we moved to section four we create a new civil cause of action. Four when was called civil fertility fraud and that gives a person who has been affected by this the ability to bring a civil cause of action against the doctor or healthcare provider who was involved in that a procedure that you know was done without the patient's consent. And so and sets up the types of damages that are I can be awarded in those types of cases that's generally what the bill does And I'm happy to answer any questions. Members are there any questions representative berry you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair. Resenting Gazaway we per we must need to amend this stuff to add child support. Well it and that I understand I understand what you're saying I I think yeah I read brings up an interesting issue about how that would work and certainly if the child is still under the age of eighteen. That I think. If the DNA test proves. Who the father is for instance that I think that certainly would already be on the table under existing law I do think you know raises an interesting point about how that would work with someone who's already in adult and maybe someone who missed out on child support. For the eighteen years that. job of before that shall games until that's an interesting question I'm happy to look into that. Thank you. Members any other questions. We do have one individual who is signed up to speak for the bill Mr Smith Matt Smith you'd like to come forward. And state your name for the record in you'll be recognized. Push the button again it when it's read it it's it's backwards but when it's red and so on yes ma'am. My name is Matthew Smith and madam chair members I appreciate you let me come here and speak today. I am to the best of my knowledge the first and so far the only known case of a child conceived by fertility fraud in the state of Arkansas. And I want to say that I'm the only known case because if you look at cases around the country typically once it's happened. It's not a one time thing it's the doctor does it twenty fifty a hundred times. as a matter of fact well is it here today I checked my ancestry and twenty three me accounts to see if maybe I had another sibling that popped up. Of. My biological father is Dr for Gary Phillips would. If the was was you an artificial insemination my mother using my my dad's. Semen. Instead used his own. I got interested in this because I had a very close relationship with my grandfather. He passed away the day before my birthday day for my eleventh birthday and to me even today I look at him like a kid looks like Captain America or Iron Man. It was a Guadalcanal that marine. And one of my and my proudest moments. Was when I graduated from record boot camp completed the crucible and receive my eagle globe and anchor and I just knew that that he was smiling down on me and proud. And now because of this I I question if he had known about this if I would still have that same relationship with them and I hate myself for asking that because I know he was a better man than that. I have just a couple of short email excerpts that I I would like to read today in the first one is actually from a biological father I emailed him. When I first discovered up before I really knew for certain what it happened. and I'd ask him to take a DNA test to confirm that he was my biological father. and his response was I understand that it must be difficult to find out that your father isn't your father. Think about my father I would ask you to talk to ride a bike who went to your school programs who covers you when you scrape your knee and so much more a father is much more than DNA. I would suggest that perhaps you should enjoy the father you have. I will say that that is the one and only honest and true thing that I have heard from that man. My dad I I like I said I I see my grandfather is a Captain America. And because of that I don't think I give my dad enough credit for all the things that he's taught me and given me. He worked long hours often six days a week to get my brother I the best life that we possibly could have. When the kindest most selfless and generous men that that I've ever met known. I've never heard him complain about a single thing except maybe for officiating you're a football game. I'm still learning but I hope that that I can live up to the example that he is set me. He's supposed to be my biological father. It's supposed to be. And instead I had the DNA of an evil man. My children also carry that DNA now. And on that that topic. My son who is now two and a half it is a wonderful wonderful healthy boy. At twenty one days old he wasn't acting right we call the nurses line of children's. And they suggested that we take him to the ER when he got to the E. R. his heart rate was two hundred forty beats a minute it ended up at around three hundred use an SVG. Ultimately he coated they did CPR for fifty one minutes he was on a ECMO machine a bypass machine for about two days on a ventilator for another three. In total we spent thirty nine days at the. Cardio vascular unit at children's hospital. And is by god's grace and and the doctors nurses there that he's alive today. I can't tell you how many times I was asked. You know is there any family history of heart problems. At that point in time I had not yet put all the pieces together I was still working through it sitting in the hospital for thirty nine days actually gave me a lot of time to put pieces together and I had the motivation at that time. It is to be that powerless to to try to. Fite something that could help your child is unbelievable. When we got all the pieces put together we went to the Little Rock PD. to to follow a criminal report. The the. The officer the desk was very helpful he he did his best to try to find something and get somebody that can help us. Ultimately he didn't know how to write the report what how the report should be written so he asks the sex crimes detectives to come down and talk to us. there get ready go to lunch S. is to come back so we came back an hour and a half later so there's with another forty five minutes before they came down to talk to us. Took a quick statement from us so they talk to the prosecutor and get back with us. It was a Thursday or Friday so to be in the early the next week when a detective detective Richard Helderman got back with me and said that there was no statute that the prosecutors confined to prosecute the the crime under. I am asking if you just take an informational course we could have infirmity I have a record that we common attempted to file criminal charges. He said he would and I was supposed to call him back to get that set up. Call them I think thirty something times left over fifteen messages and he never returned a call. it's taken me almost two years. To finally get back to a place where just this week I've called and. Talk to internal affairs to become like a complaint about that. and and I I love law enforcement I don't wanna take anywhere from them I got a bad. By detective. And from what I've gotten so far Little Rock PD is going to handle the situation as well but that out. My point being I don't want someone else to go through that part of the story to have to deal with you know. The pain that you're already going through and then to go to law enforcement and have law enforcement not be able to do anything for you. The. Maybe the one good thing that I've had come out of this. Is one of the doctors children his youngest son. Well before me his youngest son. and I have having on talking And started to build that that brother relationship. And he gave me something that he wanted to pass on it was simply is not. Only the known and unknown victims who have been impacted by the family members of that one person who committed these acts. It is an atrocious act on medical oath and his family oath that is unforgivable. I'll be the first to say their aspects of this bill that I would like to see more done on an I've talked with several members about getting that done for the next session. All right now there needs to be something on the book to protect people moving forward. Thank you. Per se Richmond you're recognized. Thank you madam chair and first of all supervisor bill dog procedure service rock. And. As I understand it that right now that there's really nothing has happened to this individual that committed this fraud resulting in the circumstances am I correct in that. We've proceeded with civil action against him But it's been a very stressful. and he's tried every legal loophole to to have those charges are those actions against him dropped. Representative Cavenaugh you're recognized thank you madam chair over here. For other victims of this crime I'm assuming you find out the root how this crime actually occurred is because you do and some type of genetic testing if it whether it's one two three or whatever it is and it comes back that your biological do you think your biological father is not and then you're able to trace it through that I'm just trying to figure out how someone knows of this crime has occurred. It in my particular case I just gotten interested in in the ancestry portion find out more about my family so I took the test and. My dad's side of the family he's got brothers and sisters but before that it was one child and one child one child one child so when I got my results there weren't many matches or any matches but I didn't put it together but I asked my dad to take a test thinking that he was one generation closer. and when he took his test you know it should pop up the was my father and it didn't. What I did once that happened was I started looking at family trees of people I didn't recognize and I started seeing names appearing multiple trees one of the jumped out at me was a a George Washington Carter I just the George Washington name kind of popped out at me so I had four five different names and I started creating family trees going down for those those people and they say this was over months and ultimately X. marks the spot. Follow chair you're recognized for a follow up so really it's gonna come more prevalent because more and more people are going to be using the services. You know like I gave them all of my family for Christmas so we're all waiting to see are we really all related or not. But I mean so that's really what's causing these this particular issue to rise because we have the technology now that we can it's much easier to trace really what our biological father and mother are. That's correct and and as it becomes more and more prevalent you in my case I had to look at it third fourth cousins to look back you know if if I have a half sibling that takes the test now it's gonna be very clear very quickly what happens. Representative Smith you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair a. I'm right here. First of all thank you for your service. I'm curious is this Taylor T. specialist still working. He is not. He had maintained his medical license up until this year this year last year and we filed a complaint against him with the medical board. And rather than renew his license and have to face the medical board he decided not to renew. Thank you that's good. Members I see no further questions Mister Smith thank you for your testimony today we appreciate you coming thank you we have no one else was signed up representative guess what you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you madam chair colleagues just to a in closing let me say that we would be the first state to enact statutes like this this is an issue that's being addressed across the country Indiana has a statute similar of this Texas has addressed this in their statutes California has addressed this in their statutes we will be one of the one of the first states I mean were among the first temple of states to address this but as was noted in the testimony and and by representative Cavenaugh as questions because of the DNA testing that's now available in this and the websites such as ancestry and twenty three in me in these things people are beginning to discover that this is happening this is happened in other states and other will be our Kansans who will be affected by this and lastly I'll just say that when people go to a doctor for these types of treatments they are trusting that doctor and this is an absolute betrayal of trust and it causes heart ache for families for years to come and for that reason it needs to be criminalized and we need to have Civil cause of action that's what this bill does And so with that I make a motion to pass and would appreciate a good vote thank you members representative Gazaway is made a motion to do pass is there any discussion on the motion. Seeing no discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill thank you madam chair of the committee members we are passing over house bill fifteen ninety and we had one of the bill today Senate bill three oh six we're passing over that bill so that takes care of our agenda. read. What's your bill number represented Bryant. it is three oh six. Represent bright eight U. you're recognized come forward I'm sorry we just didn't have you down is the one to present it representative Brian were you here have you been here the whole time because there's a I didn't see you and I apologize you are aware that we have passed out house bill fifteen ninety eight that's taking up the very same of issue as an Senate bill three oh six I am madam chair. It's it's it is the same but it. It's it's it's a one and two in the bush it's argument to the Senate and been amended to be an amicable to their desires in the Senate so I'd like to go ahead and run it and then address that after if I get out the committee. Members let's turn to Senate bill three oh six once again represented bride I apologize we didn't see back there and didn't have your name down. So members let's turn to Senate bill three oh six. Senate bill three oh six representative bright you're recognized president that bill managers okay I'd like to bring up firearms instructor Joel Joan Urgell adwords to what let's go ahead since we kind of heard this bill if you want to go ahead and tell us what the differences are so that if we need to address those differences we can't close okay the addresses of the soda earlier in committee this committee passed out a representative Wardlaw as bills which goes in towards the facilities section of the statute and it it changes the words to do not include does not to strikes out means and says does not mean and includes all the municipal owned park soccer fields football fields buildings and give the exit abroad birth in that manner. What this bill does is it leaves those intact. And it's Before the bill up. And it. it leaves those intact. And it It allows concealed carry permit holders to be in those same areas with the exclusion of municipal owned buildings so much like representative war laws bill it It mirrors federal and state laws that will allow concealed carry in minutes parks and trail ways and then allows inschool except this one has the as musically went neutral on it because it's colluded some of their concerns and then the Arkansas association convention centers that also had the same issues they also went a neutral on it because the Senate amended their the bill to make a more amicable to their their desires. It was birthed out of out of Mr Edwards as a fireman Spierings instruction. He had a lot of uh. Classes that came through and he's trying to explain to them Hey if you go to a state park Utah federal park you you're covered if you go into the city park you are not so if you want to carry in the state or federal park and you are traversing through trail system that city owned through a city park you are no longer allowed so that was the birth of this bill and and Manjeri if you could allow he he came from Rogers I think you would do maybe do better to answer questions on some of the. The Bill. Yes Mister Edwards the signed up to speak for the bill so Mister Edwards if you'd like to come. Your Edwards if you'll identify yourself and you may. Thank you madam chairman my name is Joel Edwards and I'm a license Arkansas concealed carry instructor I had the opportunity to help right this bill on the Senate side I'll be brief because we did cover most of this thing the the R. bill on the Senate side is much narrower I in that it does eliminate facilities in the form of buildings. Currently you cannot carrying federal buildings or state buildings with a concealed carry permit and so that continues that on in the city so you cannot carry in city recreational facilities that are buildings it does open up city parks. Recreational facilities that are not buildings the tourism industry had some concerns about when a park a city park is allowed to have an event like toad suck daze or a concert and that those individuals who are basically leasing that part from the city would have issues with. Having firearms at that concert and so they brought those concerns up to senator Clark who pulled the bill back to committee and run it through committee as is you have it now which is amended to allow them to exclude firearms if it's a least situation so if it's a park and they're having a concert in that concert venue has the ability to exclude firearms other than that it is very similar than the bill that passed earlier thank you very much for your time. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions represent a representative bright you're recognized close for your bill I'm close manager thank you. Members represented prize close for bill what are the wishes of the committee. The motion to do pass is there any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it motion carries congratulations you've passed your bill and I apologize once again just to see you back there. All right members that does conclude our business for today members watch to watch your text messages they have given us now two season Thursdays at ten o'clock on Tuesday of and Thursdays in this room and two o'clock or after we adjourned on Tuesdays and Thursdays in this room are there any members of the committee that would have a conflict with meeting at ten o'clock on those days it'll help us to keep from going. So late in the afternoon and we are having a good number of Senate bills who are now now making their way our direction I don't see any conflicts just watch and I will try to let you know we may not meet Tuesday at two o'clock we just have to see how our agenda shakes out I want to wish each of you a happy Easter as we finish up celebrating our Holy Week and with that we are adjourned safe travels.