Judiciary Committee- House

Our first bill today will go straight down the list. Our first bill today is house bill one one zero zero represented eleven are you here and ready to present your bill. Representive eleven you're recognized to present your bill members this is a concurrence in the Senate amendment. Thank you madam chair committee members several weeks ago ofsted center before you presented house bill eleven hundred regarding mandated reporters adding some categories to that appreciate indulges the committee who who helped pass this bill through here that through the House floor other was one suggestion amendment that I believe representative flowers represent Clowney had had asked for and I agreed to do that on the Senate in when we got down to the Senate in that amendment was presented however it it was typed incorrectly it was the purpose of the amendment was to take out the volunteers of higher ed and when The Amendment was presented it took out everyone involving higher ed so higher ed came back and they said we want to make sure that we are included in this and that there wasn't any a perspective the higher it was trying to not be included in the bill and so we had to run a second amendment to get that put back in and get the language correct the language is correct you just need to get that Amendment concert concurred here with the wishes of this committee. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions what are the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to concur in the Senate amendment. Any discussion on the motion. All in favor please say aye. Any opposed not opposed congratulations we have thank you committee next bill is house bill thirteen thirty representative Brian. Represent bright you have an amendment on thirteen thirty I do not manager. I do not. Representative right you're recognized to present your bill thank you madam chair Committee this bill is to amend statue sixteen dash eighty seven to thirteen to authorize a judge to issue a shorts I have a short window of time to appoint a public defender case the defendant cannot due to loss of mental capability or or physical capability be able to file as to a certificate of indigency. a lot of times if they can if they cannot comprehend the paperwork due to their capacity and they just sit in jail until at some point the judge threw the ethical obligation feels the need to be compelled to say somebody please help that individual so they can fill out the certificate and if the judge finds that there's a need for point a public defender a public defender gets appointed this would allow a judge seen that need to go ahead and appoint one. To help the individual fill out the certificate in the event that this certificate of indigency comes that he he or she can't afford an attorney their release from that liability. Members are there any questions. Represent Hudson you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair I'm looking at Page two. In line twenty three this is us section be to about A an instance where the appointed attorney could question the indigency of the defendant how do you A. A. I'm I'm curious about how you envision that process working because it's not laid out here in the statute you know it questions how I mean are they doing investigation into it did they have to submit some sort of paperwork I mean what does that look like I envision as as a a lower jurisdictions contract this work out and so it in the event that that this ticket finds it you know maybe maybe the defendant Sobers up maybe you know he was he or she was on on drugs and the effects of one off that you know they don't have to may be maintained as the public defender they can say you know I'd like to issue a motion a call the judge we left a little bit open as far as the means in the house because the use the judgment of the authority to to manage that but in in the long run if if the certificate comes back that they can't afford an attorney that public defender will be released without obligation thank you. Represent Collins you're recognized for a question. thank you madam chair I think mark my questions are really along the same lines of fleshing out the procedure here so the attorney can seek to be relieved as the attorney of record you're saying by a motion not in here but okay let's say it's a motion what is that on what basis is the judge supposed to decide whether or not to grant the motion what happens if they do what happens if they don't and also is is a certificate of indigency contemplated as needing to be done in this case of the summary appointment or is it in lieu of the certificate of indigency. It's. It's your question it'd be it'd B. C. somebody has to assist this an individual whether incarcerated at at this point if if if the if the certificate is handed and the person just does not have a mental facilities to do it. I'm not sure if I'll get your question but if if during that course that the you know the judge finds that okay I'm not seeing this person because they cannot. You cannot get here on their own and they don't have a public defender. They're gonna go ahead and point out that public defender during their short association of you maybe by the time they gets they get there the person can fill it out just fine and then goes the judges as the you're I'm not needed because here is what I find or maybe they can't fill it out so that public defender can assist them to the process along with the with the police authorities to contact relatives just to figure out what what the status of the individual is to be able to move forward is that is that encroach on your question. Thanks it does I mean it the more information I guess the the better for me because I'm just I'm feeling like there needs to be a little bit more detail I don't want to confuse things any more then we need to or orally things that are ambiguous That may need to be figured out on the fly some that's all perhaps the way I understand it is is these these actions currently happen in society there there is an ethical responsibility for somebody to help a person in need but right now there's no statutory will cover for judicial system to be able to apply this so in lieu of of doing what they think is right and have an inability to defend their actions this I believe this morning will give them a broad little bit rot authority to be able to do what they need to do but also statutory cover to be able to defend. Represent Gazaway you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair I'm looking on page to see the language about at the time of the appointment of the attorney the court immediately shall assess a fee of not less than ten dollars nor more than four hundred dollars. Is that new language that you're adding it is not okay mark thank you. Members any other questions. We do have one individual who is signed up to speak against the bill Greg parish would like to come forward and identify yourself. And you'll be recognized. Greg parish the Arkansas public defender commission's executive director. There's several concerns I have with this and the main thing is it's it's shifting an administrative burden that's required of the court to the public defender as if we don't have enough to do as it is. What we're talking about for people that I presume or incarcerated. Under our rules rule eight point one they are so rules of criminal procedure. Someone who is incarcerated under arrest should be brought before court within seventy two hours. Within that seventy two hours the judge should also make a determination as to indigency. And the statute puts that obligation solely on the judge not us. What we see is during that seventy two hours or forty eight hours. The jail has already found out whether or not this person has a problem I mean it didn't happen when this person walked into the courtroom. If that's the case then jails are typically they're calling our offices the prosecutor's office the judge's office trying to get someone to a civil commitment on this person at which point we'll be appointed then as well the civil commitment but they're getting the treatment that they need for their mental disability. If it's so severe or or if it's alcohol we also have what is been approved in the past and funded by the state of I believe the concierge use but they're the local facilities for law enforcement can take someone who's completely incapacitated due to mental illness or alcoholism at the time of rest don't have to take him to jail can take one of that facility. This also creates a huge ethical problem us because if this decision is then placed on us to decide whether or not our client is not indigent. Do we then report back to the court well our client is not indigent we can't represent him our client here's that in the Jess's no we Is indigent. So you've already got a little friction there between the client and the attorney already would you make the public defender decide this. and that's our opposition to moving this over to us because the other thing is is the jail tells the court you know this this person is. Not capable of appearing in court for whatever reason. A general transport stock company jail court which is is absolute right to come to court. And I'll take any questions. Members are there any questions for Mr Parrish. Seeing the questions thank you Mr perish we have no one else was signed up to speak for or against the bill representative bright you're recognized to close for your bill thank you madam chair only few things I say is is you know we. The district judges they were they worked with Mr purchase office and we thought we you know this was amended down to come up some language that was more amenable so when I discussed this back to to their group the group that I'm helping I guess the questions that they they said just pose in general as as as a just as a society years individual is so judges shouldn't appoint public defenders from mentally ill people. Really there there's something statutorily where they feel like they do not have cover to be able to do that are we the same enough you know viable enough to fill out the form. And if the real if the if the mentally ill camped out the form should as we leave them in jail without an attorney. And then judges are still actively force to do this we should be giving them statutory authority to cover it so again obviously this got got right they feel like it's it's to uniform problem in this this language would they feel give them some cover to make some of those are decisions to ensure people get the help they need. Members represent the bride is close for his bill what are the wishes of the committee. We 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 nose haven't the bill has failed the next bill we're coming to will be house bill thirteen eighty six representative Gonzalez you're recognized. Members there is an amendment that's being passed around this time. Represent consolidated recognized to present your amendment. The manager thank you Committee this member just remove some language a deal with the manufacturers manufacturing of guns and and accessories on the state takes that out of that that will be coming out of in a different bill later on the Senate bill of thing just just passed out of the Senate committee today but we originally had had all this language in one bill and then split the two so this is just something that was was left over there that was unintentional and this it also changed up for the role of the attorney general's office and enforcement of this. Members are there any questions on the amendment. See no questions one of which is the committee. No we have a motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion on the motion to adopt the amendment all in favor adoption amendments police say aye. Any oppose. Motion is carried you're now recognized to present your bill as amended the manager Committee the the meat of this bill is starts on page two line thirty one unlawful enforcement of federal statutes what this is is it's it's not a notification of federal law a federal law would still apply in all cases but it it this is anti commandeering. Laws what is of their. Is plenty. Of supreme court cases that uphold states rights in the anti commandeering spring court as long held the states do not have to actively participate in the enforcement or effectuate tion of federal acts or regular shared regulatory programs there are five landmark cases dealing with that. one of the biggest ones dealing with was second amendment rights would be prince versus United States. At issue is a provision of the Brady gun bill that required county law enforcement officers to administer part of the background check program shares J. prince and Richard Mack sued arguing these provisions unconstitutionally forced them to administer a federal program justice Scalia agreed writing the majority opinion it is apparent that the Brady act purports to direct state law enforcement officers to participate albeit only temporarily in the ministration of federally and and acted regulatory schemes. So that's really the the just this bill it's all it does is so that. State agencies or anybody acting on behalf of the state will not enforce of federal gun regulations. Created or effective on after January first twenty twenty one. Members are there any questions representative Gonzalez. Seeing no questions we do have I'm sorry representative flowers you're recognized for a question. Thank you. thank you madam chair represent Gonzalez as I read this I'm just wondering who. In the state of Arkansas. Would make the determination. Of the or make the interpretive determination of which federal laws to apply and which ones not to apply. in this case if it violates the second amendment. Dealing with firearms or ammunition or firearms accessories. Follow manager. Recognized for a follow up. And I guess the trouble I'm having is. If there is a federal law that. an agency law enforcement agency may not deem as in violation And interprets that federal law as being you know consistent. With the rights of that we hold in the state. How or who who would how do we get past individuals versus the courts determining. What applies and what doesn't. Ultimately it it will be the courts that decide that. Thank you Mr. Members any other questions representing Hudson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair so. Local government state actors are not allowed to use any resource to enforce any act law statute rule or regulation of the United States government created or effective after January one twenty twenty one and relating to personal firearms firearm accessories or ammunition so let's say at the mid terms the Republicans retake Congress and they decide to pass a federal law that says that the federal government is eggs is barred from taking any further action related to firearms are you saying under this that we're not going to enforce that law. I believe that would comply with constitutional second amendment so and hope the Republicans do take over in the terms sure but this doesn't this doesn't say we're going to enforce the laws we like it says we're not going to use we're not going to force any. In complying with the constitution. If you go back up above section two on page two. it speaks directly the constitutional protections being upheld and that's that's the standard that we go up. All right Adam chair you're recognized for a follow up so for purposes of the statute then what you envision is that the courts have to sort out in the end whether or not this particular federal rule regulation or statute is or is not compliant with the second amendment is that accurate. Yes I believe the secretary. Thank you manager. Represent a slight you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair the representatives also see the Attorney General's what's harder of the tourney general's position. So the attorney general's office is neutral with the amendment that's added okay thank you Sir. And I say neutral I don't know if they support or not but I just got word that they are okay with it with the with the amendment so. Saying no at a representative guess what you're recognized. Thank you madam chair. I represented Gonzales I like what you're. Trying to do with the bill but I listen to representative Hudson's questions and as I'll look at the bill when you say that. The state wouldn't be responsible for enforcing any laws passed at the federal level. If they were consistent with the second amendment is that in the legislative intent section or is that in the actual Effective language in the bill. Manager if you don't mind I'll have Senator Ballinger. Senator Ballinger I know you're the Senate sponsor on this bill you're recognized please identify yourself and you may proceed certain about under some district five AM so the bill is really pretty basic straightforward basically says any new federal gun regulations weather by rule executive order or by law goes into effect that wouldn't the state of Arkansas will not enforce them so Whether you're to state entity county city whatever it's it's utilize what's called anti commandeering doctrine which I know you know that Revson Gazaway just basically says that we're not going to apply any state resources that's why it'll be upheld as constitutional because the federal government can't force us to carry out its will and wishes it has its own obligations so well won't make it where you can go rest arrest ATF agents who come in the state to enforce any new federal regulations our people are are you know employees won't be doing that so so that's basically the mechanism how it how it functions and how it works. If there is a future gun law that comes in and we thought you know that's common sense gun form and the people of Arkansas should support that well the legislature can act that time either amend this law or or pass something on the state level to regulated I said this time most of the citizens Arkansas aren't as worried about that as much as a worried about the fact that they're about seat over recent federal government come and particularly by executive order try to put restrictions on firearms and ammunition. Thank you. Represent Crawford you're recognized for a question I'll make a motion at the time please. Are there any other questions members. We do have an individual who is signed up to speak for the bill Mr Calvert you'd like to come forward and speak in favor of the bill. Excuse me we have no one else was signed up. To speak in favor or against the bill represents of I'm sorry I missed you Scott. Are you here to speak in favor or against. What. Come on up to the table I'm sorry I just missed seeing your name I apologize if you'll come forward to the table defy yourself. And you may speak against the bill. I'm chair out my name's Scott Bradley in the director the sheriffs association I'm I'm ten I'm hesitant to say against our but I have I think the shares had some questions and some issues with it and I spoke at the with the Sanders this morning I think some of the things that some issues or questions that we had was. Are we taken to to to support the constitution to enforce the constitution both United States constitution and Arkansas constitution. And I guess what it is is we we work closely with our federal partners all the time and we count on them especially in a smaller counties. to enforce do you know or or. Your the loss in and keep everyone safe so that's what we do You know I I just kind of if you say if we swear that were on and forced you ask the constitution and the law and we do so. And then we're charged for doing something we've sworn to do I think that's where there's some confusion for the shares it's not that we want take anyone's guns way we appreciate what the bill does we wanna protect people's second minute gun rights probably as much or more than anyone I don't I know that you'll never see a county sheriff growing take good citizens guns away from that is not that's not gonna happen just not gonna happen the however we do it we do work closely with our federal partners that are local state and federal partners pretty much on a daily basis. And I just don't know how this is going to affect that. so that's just it in a nutshell some some of the questions I had and I ask this morning and you know I I think that's the fair questions And that's kind of the issues that the shares have within a show. Members are there any questions to Mr Ragland. Thank you Mr Ragland Preciado and I apologize again for missing your name. We have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representative Gonzalez you're recognized to close for your bill. I think Senator Ballinger one make you councils will you know what what I want to do is honestly I the shares police law enforcement there in a really hard time they're they're faced with with a really difficult time the the climate has been been such that they're constantly getting beat up and I hate to do anything to make their job harder I think that if that if people were able to slow down look at this you might actually be able to see where it make their job easier. they're going to be faced I believe I hope that I'm wrong they're gonna be faced with with the real dilemma of enforcing federal gun laws that they know are unconstitutional they know violate the second amendment they know violate the enable rights of the people that they represent. And so they're gonna be forced with with dealing with that what this will do is give them a tool to be able to point to and say with a in the constitutional bounds right to the Supreme Court has already said the anti commandeering doctrine is constitutional so within the bounds of the US constitution which there were no pulled and the state constitution which gives authority of the legislature to address such bills they'd be able to say you know sorry my good partners that we work with on on drug my good partners we work with on on organize try crime and child trafficking and all the other good stuff that they do I can help you go confiscate these thirty round magazines because my state law so that we can do it. And so I think this is a reasonable approach it it it is not doesn't goes far as some other bills which I also support those but but what it does is it provides that tool that mechanism for our law enforcement officers to support the law because the law is made outside the constitution is no all. Members represent Gonzalez Senator Ballinger clothes for their bill representative proper you're recognized for a motion. I have there you go I make a motion for do pass as amended members we have a motion to do pass as amended on the floor is there any discussion of the motion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no. The nose haven't bills failed. Call the roll. Represent. Representative Ferguson. The representative Ferguson votes No representative flowers. Representative flowers votes No representative next. Representative next votes no. Representive Richmond. Representative Richmond votes yes representative Cavenaugh. Representative Cavenaugh votes yes representative Gazaway. Representative Gazaway votes yes representive berry. Representive bearing. Representative Crawford. Representative Crawford votes yes representative Scott. Representative Scott votes No representative Slape. Representative Slape votes yes representative Clowney. Representative Clowney. Representative Cooper. Representive Cooper votes yes representive Richardson. Representative Richard St votes No representative Collins. Representive Collins votes No representative McCullough. Representative McCollum votes No representative Hudson. Representative Hudson votes no. Representative under would. Representative under would vote yes representative Brandt Smith. Representive Brandt Smith. Representative Dalby. Representative Dalby votes yes. The bill has failed. Members the next bill will be house bill fourteen seventeen representative cloud and we have a. Financial impact statement. So members of you'll take a look at the financial impact statement I believe it should be on your desk. Representative cloud you're recognized to present your bill. All members this is house bill fourteen seventy. Thank you madam chairman thank you Committee. House Bill fourteen seventeen is to amend the Arkansas code annotated five dash fourteen dash one twenty seven. Of this bill essentially changes to numbers on line twenty three of the original acted says being twenty years of age and we change that to twenty one years of age or older. On line twenty six it says less than sixteen years of age and we change that to under eighteen years of age. Committee there's a lot of things in this state that you can't do if you're not eighteen years of age or older the person has to be eighteen years of age to join the military or the Arkansas National Guard has to be at least twenty one years of age to even be employed to drive a taxi or a bus for hire you have to be at least twenty one years old to gamble or to even serve in the Arkansas house of representatives you have to be at least twenty one years old to purchase alcohol or to sail transport or handle an alcoholic beverage. One has to be at least twenty one years of age to serve as a care giver to any minor who uses medical marijuana. Or to work in a medical marijuana dispensary or to smoke marijuana for medical use you have to be at least twenty one years of age to enter into or work at a restaurant or bar that allows indoor smoking what about tobacco cigarettes or vapor products one has to be at least twenty one years of age to obtain a conceal carry firearms license or to do business as any type of collection agency you have to be at least twenty one years of age to be admitted to practice in the as an attorney. Or a counselor at law in the courts of Arkansas. Twelves other states have age of consent at eighteen. What we do with our current law. We leave the upper age open ended. So a thirty yearold a thirty five year old a forty or fifty euro can pray as it is now on any one. That is sixteen years of age. We're asking to have that changed eighteen. I do have a constituent here that has driven up to testify. if the committee would like to hear. Members are there any questions of represent the clout. We do have some individuals who signed up to speak for against represent cloud we have to speak against. house bill fourteen seventeen. Jeff Rosenzweig Mr residence where you can come forward. Sorry representative could particular question I apologize. Madam chair could we hear from I think you're signed up they'll be up here in a minute okay thank you. CSK. Russian flowers if you hit your button I can turn your microphone on. The fires has a question representative you're recognized thank you madam chair and this may be addressed with other witnesses but I wanted to ask you representive cloud. I've. Really sort of liked your bill and I'm reminded of the changes we made to our marriage laws and during that process which shocked to find out that. Our marriage laws had historically been based upon the age of consent and In some cases there was no minimum when a girl was pregnant And so what I'm wondering but one of the roadblocks that I ran into was. I guess the occurrence of sexual activity. between young people. And so I'm wondering. What your thoughts are about how we might be. Criminalising young people. In something that we know happens and also how would you what it how would this bill affect. People who would be married and within these age ranges so for example in our state right now. The marriage ages seventeen so what about a woman who marries At seventeen. A spouse who is twenty. And they're married and have you know how would that work thank you. Thank you representative flowers Having a legal union. I'm not the I don't think any prosecutor would go after that legal union just because they were having sexual relations now the other part of your question about criminalizing sexual activity with for young people basically eighteen Junior's possibly seniors in high school and a freshman in college I think you're fixing to hear from Mr Rosen's whack on that. You're recognized for a follow up thank you madam chair of an I guess I was posing the question I should oppose the question I don't imagine that any one of those either one of those young people would be filing a complaint but whether married or not married in those within those age ranges I imagine that there might be parents who disapproved of a marriage or disapprove of that relationship and try to use that to control that and criminalized kids participating in. You know activities that They decided you know to to engage in so. I'm even in the case of marriage if you could speak to that thank you. Representing. Cloud would you like maybe we. Mr Rosenzweig to take a stab at that I don't know I think it was last year but I'm not I'm sorry I didn't hear the question in there I thought it was just a statement. I'm sorry if I was a clear so the statement really is every stating a my question but more along the lines of parents or others because it wouldn't be one of the consenting young people or consenting adults whose Mary it you know it might be someone who doesn't approved and is trying to criminalize two people who are in gauge and a consenting relationship. My apologies representative flowers of I thought you were just making a statement but obviously yes I guess the next door neighbor Amman the disgruntled dad whatever could bring that to the attention of law enforcement then it would be up to them whether to proceed that yes. Mr residence where you're recognized thank you Jeff Rosenzweig Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers over the course of years of we think we've gotten the of laws into equilibrium in terms of of sexual offenses to get the people of that you want to get at but not of but not penalize the so called Romeo and Juliet offenders this bill would take us back and into the other direction the the sexual assault fourth degree of for instance has no it is based solely on age differential it has no there's no requirement that a that'd be no defense that it was consensual it is it is based solely upon age and if you look at the at the ages in there it would among other things static felon eyes consensual sex of people who are in college together of their college students who were twenty one they're college students particular freshman some of whom were under eighteen and this would be subject to a lot of abuse and the abuse specifically would be that every there will be arbitrary and capricious enforcement and I think representative flowers basically picked up on that which is that of certain parents who would have a particular amount of influence with police or prosecutors would get there daughters boyfriends of. A prosecuted in of for a consensual relationship and have them labeled the sex offender for life with all the disabilities and shaming that are that goes along with that of. I don't think. I I don't think this bill is is necessary in her we're living in a society that is just absolutely soaked with sex any a person whose are able to manipulate an iPhone can find all the sex the sexual activity to watch or whatever that he or she wants so you're going to if it is to be expected that people of that age may exercise what amounts to be poor judgment at times but that should just be R. or what people may consider to be immoral conduct may or may not of. And it at and we've of but just because someone may consider it immoral possibly or poor judgment does not necessarily mean it should be criminalized and I believe that of this bill should fail for that reason and I'm happy to answer any questions. Members are there any questions. Representative Ferguson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair. Mr Rosenzweig. Going back to my college days and of course law is different the and but you said something about a twenty one year old and a seventeen year old. And if my memory serves me correctly. There was a situation when I was a senior mmhm the friend of mine's with the dating this freshman. Who was seventeen she and her eighteen year. And of course now they are married and they've yet kids. So if this law went into effect and in in this in the deal that. The concern me is that her father did not like this particular guy. And came. From his home town to sort of disrupt the. The relationship so so under this piece of legislation he could impress upon the prosecutor or the police to arrest the twenty one year old for dealing with his college freshman daughter who was seventeen at Tatton she would have turned eighteen in I think two or three months thank you is this. This bill would this is this is the type of thing that I'm that I'm getting at of representative cloud talked about the you know the thirty year olds the forty rules of the the. People that you know of who or what pre dating or being acting predatory toward toward a a younger person but the problem is by setting the age here at by raising the age of consent to eighteen and just changing the age of commission to twenty one you're going to catch a whole lot of people who you don't who who are not within representative clouds of group of people that he wants to catch I think if if you if you raise the age of the commission of the offense to age thirty or something like that you might catch those people of as it particularly if you're dealing if you're raising the age of consent from from sixteen to eighteen I think that we're I think we're in basically a good place now I think we're in but we have a we have a. Age limitations that that have a that reflect the reality of the society were in and we we have much less our because of the age in the current statute we have much less arbitrary enforcement then we would have it the agency changed. Thank you manager. Representative Scott you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair. I have a quick question I'm a huge advocate for juvenile justice and criminal justice reform and to me I work with kids every day I might agree with the decisions they make and like you emphasize some might think the decision to have sex before marriage is immoral But I'm concerned that if we criminalize the behavior of these young folks McCollum young folks who I was young not too long ago who make. At decisions or they're in love or they're caught in a truck which they should be doing doing things they shouldn't be doing that they're gonna is gonna create opportunity for them if abused this lob pass to get a record in that follows them for the rest of their lives in the implications of that to me R. for greater than I think representative Klaus heart and I know what he's trying to you know I know him well enough to know like when I think he's trying to do with this bill but I'm thinking the the intent of it can be greater than. That may be his that's correct to a representative Scott if there's forcible compulsion that's already dealt with elsewhere someone forces someone to have sex if someone of get someone so drunk that they can't consent that's also dealt with in other sections this this section will solve for by its very definition criminalizes work would be consensual conduct by both sides and so what you're saying in this is if this bill were to Be enacted that a someone who is seventeen years and three hundred sixty four days old. would not be able to would not be able to consent and and once someone is convicted of any sex offense the consequences are just enormous in terms of the sex offender registration and and if he or she is a level three he can't live certain places you can't work places and and all the other disabilities that are that attached to that and this is this is simply road we we just don't need to go down and and decided we're in right now thank you. We have no other questions we have thank you Mr Rosenzweig thank you being here Mr Mike Boettcher roll. R. J. Rowe. Your comportment identify yourself recognized to speak for the bill. Yes push the button right there and you'll be ready. Hi I'm Mike Jerome from Russell Arkansas in one thank. Dr clout for allowing me to come today from sponsoring this bill I'm the one that asked him as a citizen of Arkansas and as a parent of a child that of things happen because of a here this bill about a twenty one year old you know the law starting but it there we in Arkansas and all across the nation we say twenty one is a bill. I don't think they would have any argument here laws on that you're twenty one you're not built you accept certain responsibilities. I have a son that was sixteen almost seventeen. In a twenty one year old girl. Started. Preying on him. Trying to tell him that shoot god spoke to her and told her that they were to be together. Him being a we all know sixteen seventeen year old male of their very impressionable We raised our son to be morally right and and I don't know all of you know all of them but mistakes but she prayed on him my wife my daughter both went to her and told her to stay away from me our pastor of our church she was going to our church he spoke during second she went to him and ask him to ask us to reconsider because she felt like it was god's will he told her it's never god's will for parent or child disobey their parents. And told her to stay away she did not do it. She came in our home while I was at work my wife his or my daughter at the time was working at the governor's office as an intern during the summer she came to our house and it doesn't take much to get a seventeen year old commence and have sex nope and she convinced him to have sex. That was in June and August two weeks after school started his senior year he comes to me my wife on a Sunday evening. And says I made a mistake. And he began to cry seventeen year old big offense of linemen senior high school he said I made a mistake. And we said what's wrong what would you do I think you got a speeding ticket as he got one in June I think he's going to with another one he said no he said. In this young lady had sex to begin to tell us again the source text and things that went on. And my first response some of us as the general secretary just a minute ago said there may be some parents and I'm going to prosecutor I'm going to a police officer I'm going to have them arrested yes I said that is a parent I think most of you would if you had a child come to you and said the same thing with the same circumstances. And he looked at me and he said that you can't do that. My response to him was signed. Don't tell me what I can't do I mean I'm just being honest with you as a parent I'm upset. And he said with you know we think she's pregnant there's nothing do Arkansas up law. Allows agency Senate sixteen I had no clue I did not know that I looked it up and he was right I called some police officer friends of mine the next day said couple that the two that I called did not know that they would look to me said please correct she had looked up the law can be instilled that he could use it he said I consented. I can't stand the line said didn't. If she had come into my house and beat him up Herbie twenty one she would be arrested I could have done so because parent but as a parent I can do nothing to protect my child. I'm responsible as a parent in the state of Arkansas for market until they're eighteen years old. The laws that you guys have passed hold me responsible until he's eighteen. Unless he wants to have sex. And I have no say so in it. And it's like I'm a bad parent if I wanna go after that person. But I won't take it turn it said twenty one she brought Michael Jordan said she brought in Arkansas should be arrested. You can't buy the buckle two is eighteen the statement said. By the German central got he was. Seventeen years old printer sixty four days old. He could have sex. Thank you consent. Well the same thing if he was twenty years old and three and sixty four days to keep alcohol recorded Arkansas loading be arrested well that three sixty four today is that correct. Yes that's correct. So we got to draw a line somewhere there's got to be a line drawn if you can make twenty one an adult Senate take adult responsibilities. Thank adult responsibilities and say at twenty one. You have sex with somebody under eighteen we're not saying we're prosecutor seventeen euro for having sex with is the twenty one year old committed the crime and we're not going to save you to have sex with eighteen or nineteen twenty year old note this for years difference come all. Sixty five years difference. I thank you's got kids at home you don't want to twenty one year old messing with your sixteen year old. Your grandparents you don't want to twenty one you're missing your sixteen year old. Or seventy or is not acceptable. I understand we talk about morals Arkansas has gotten away from morals and we need to stop and think about it this problem some of our society now backed your parents of his parents our hands are tied in the state of Arkansas. We have no recourse like I said it should commence I wish I wish you would come in a meeting up the second header rested. Now let me tell you. I have moved on we've got a beautiful grandson right now could be a year old next month he spent sixty percent of the time at my house. Because this twenty one year old male twenty two almost twenty three year old registered twenty three last week what we can. Doesn't want to take care of it. It is our responsibility to and I what I mean I love the child mark responsible what this is not the way I want to become a grandparent but god has a purpose for everything if that life was born. If the baby's born adults all purpose we're going to do our part raising we're doing our part in raising a child my son is going to college Arkansas tech. I got his permission to but this also he's going Arkansas tech to fully further his education he's working and trying to support this baby's penicillin support. And the mother still coming after you what more what more am I able to above what the law requires anybody stand with a sixty percent of time so these are situations again and as parents our hands are tied I'm asking you today to consider this bill the same situation could happen it could put a twenty five year old a thirty year old one of the sixteen or seventeen year old. And the law protects them. If they can get into consent the law protects the. I don't think any of you sitting here today think that's acceptable. I hope you don't think a thirty year old male or female to go after sixty or seventy year old well your loss today allow it thank you to consent. Your loss they allowed twenty five year old that's not acceptable it's not simple for twenty one year old if it is not acceptable for them to offer alcohol to a child go look at psychological studies and see what does more damage. A twenty one year old adults having sex was sixteen or seventeen year old or go to a drink of alcohol. What damage is it doing to that child at six sixty seven year old look at the psychological studies their minds are developed you all know that you've been sixteen seventy year olds. Thank back to the mistakes and things that you did you mention crazy decisions. I think all of us did. Because our minds when fully developed why do we allow twenty one year old prey on. Thank you for your time. Thank you Mr chair for being here today. We have ginger cons who signed up to speak against the bill. Your comportment identify yourself you'll be recognized to speak against the bill. I'm ginger times a staff attorney with the prosecutor coordinator's office in is a very rare event we agree with the defense bar and Jeff. we believe that seventeen year old and twenty one year old having sexual relations should not actually be a crime we're very concerned the prosecutors were very concerned about juries they said that they have a very difficult time now. Getting a conviction any time the ages or older anytime you have that you know that you're dealing with teenagers so they I think that this would be very hard to to get a conviction anyway and the other point that they brought up that Jeff also brought up was. We do know personally even many seventeen year olds that our freshman in college and you know the senior might be twenty one in their dating and we just don't think it's a good idea to to have that as a crime. Thank you Miss crimes for coming today I see no questions I appreciate your time we have no one else was signed up to speak for against the bill representative cloud you're recognized close for your bill yes thank you madam chair. Less than sixteen. You remember what the law is currently I know it's difficult I know you've heard some some very robust arguments there my question would be are we responsible for our actions and if we are what age does that start even on the lower end and on the upper end I appreciate the committee's time thank you. Members represented cloud has close for his bill what are the wishes of the committee. Right represent the Smith as a motion to do pass on the floors or any discussion of the motion to do pass. All in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no. The nose haven't the bill has failed. Members the next bill house bill fourteen twenty the representative brightest S. that that bill be passed over so we're passing over that bill the next bill is house bill fourteen thirty five representative Smith you're recognized present your bill. Thank you madam chair colleagues let me just share a little bit about the importance of house bill fourteen thirty five. We believe in states rights. We believe that we should be in many respects autonomous. And self governing. But in in the current climate that we find ourselves. The potential for federal over reach. Has become more rampant in our minds in our thinking. This bill has been. Determined. To be anti law enforcement but that's not the case. This bill is protective in every way under the tenth amendment of the United States constitution. And article two of the Arkansas state constitution. There are. Sections in this bill that protect our law enforcement in the state. From. Doing certain things that are. Executive orders mandates or. Issues that may be handed down by the federal government out of DC and we're talking about our state troopers. We're talking about our county sheriffs and deputies were talking about our local police chiefs and local police officers. Having to. DO something because an executive order came down whether it be to restrict our right of assembly in our homes or houses of worship. Whether it would restrict our free speech whether it would be taking away our rights to own and bear arms. This really protects law enforcement in our state to to be able to say we are not going to enforce laws that are unjust unfair and go against our own Arkansas state constitution. If you and and you know a members I'm not an attorney. But here's to the best of my ability let me just mention that. Acting through the United States constitution the people of several states created the United States government we know that from history to be there agent and ex and the exercise of a few defined powers while reserving to the state governments the power to legislate on matters that concern the lives liberties and properties of citizens in the ordinary course of affairs. It's that limitation of the United States government power that is affirmed under the tenth amendment that I mention it's in are you not a state constitution which defines the total scope of federal power is being that which has been delegated by the people that's us of the several states to the United States government and all power not delegated to the United States government in the United States constitution is reserved to the states respectively or to the people themselves. Whenever the United States government assumes powers that the people did not grant it in the United States constitution it's acts are under four Tate is void and of no force. We look at the so why is this bill imported now even my own county sheriff text me the other day and said Brandt I do have a few concerns with some of the penalties but otherwise if there was ever a time that we needed a bill or this type of bill to become law it's now. Has nothing to do with the Joint Task Force cooperation a nothing like that except when those joint activities or missions go against the Arkansas state constitution and so what we're saying in this bill is simply that when the United States government assumes powers that the people did not grant. It at its acts are under Thor Tate of void. And no force. If you're looking at the bill look it Page four line thirty one. The following persons shall not enforce or assess federal agencies are officers in the enforcement of any federal statute executive order or federal agency directive and this is the critical part that conflicts with Arkansas constitution article two section five or any Arkansas law and then there is a list provided there on page five a person described under subsection D. part one of this section who knowingly assess or provide support or information to federal agents or agencies and the enforcement of federal law and executive order or a federal agency directive that conflicts with the Arkansas constitution article two section five or other Arkansas law. Is upon conviction guilty of an unclassified misdemeanor. My Senate sponsor presented a bill with similar language this morning. Over it on the Senate side in city counties and local. Senator Stubblefield deleted several of these sections of these lines to make it more palatable palatable but. Without penalties. We can't enforce or get people to do the right thing And these officers that are behind me along the wall. There are fathers or mothers our brothers our sisters our sons and daughters. I would hate it if something came down from DC some executive order and they said you're going to have to go in. And. Take away someone civil liberties because of an executive order we're putting them under a great deal of stress without this law that allows them to push back and say that goes against the Arkansas state constitution and I'm not bound to enforce that executive order. Finally if you look at page six. Here are some enumerated rights beginning on line thirteen of page six the right to peacefully assemble. The right to enjoy freedom of speech line twenty one line twenty three the right to remain free from self incrimination. And so for the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizures as found in the Arkansas constitution article two section fifteen and on and on it goes. Page seven line one the right to worship as found in the Arkansas constitution article two section twenty four. Here's the thing. And I refer back to my career history. I live for quite a number of years. In China. Where the church had to worship under ground. Basically in it was called the House church. Christians met quietly in small groups of ten or twelve anything over that it was breaking the law of the land. I've been a guest of some of these house church leaders where we had to meeting caves along small rivers. With candles burning inside this open cavern. To exercise the right of worship. In Iraq. The first two years I was there. Christians were being. Persecuted in that country as well even though their constitution guaranteed freedom of worship. We had safe rooms and hiding places in our home where we kept the in Jele The New Testament for people who are interested. We could not worship openly even though there was an open church but in one of those instances the insurgents came in and killed over sixty worshippers on October thirty first back in I think it was two thousand eight or nine. And one of my friends in the middle of that worship service where they had freedom to worship lay in a pool of blood while many others were slaughtered in front of him. Even a small child who cried and was. Unmercifully shot to death because that child wouldn't stop crying. Am I an alarmist on certain things yes I feel like I'm standing here in the gap I'm sitting here in front of you saying. Is it going to happen I don't know. Could it happen it could happen and I think for all of us to cherish our civil liberties. We can no longer sit still and do nothing to prepare for what we might see down the road. Given the fact that the most recent recent. Mass shooting was in boulder Colorado where I have multiple family members living in those those mountain towns I can tell you that. There was nothing that anyone could do. To prevent that. But the first thing we hear on the news if anything at all is we need to ban all guns or assault weapons. I don't think and and this could get me in trouble with some of my constituents but I think there are some people who probably don't need to be in possession of some assault weapons. But for the average. The person that is a law abiding there's nothing wrong with them owning a handgun or long gun for self protection and if the federal government. Issues. An executive order to take our guns away. Or restrict our our worship which we've seen a lot of many churches are just now getting back to corporate worship. I think we're gonna regret the day that we had a chance to do something and chose not to do it and with that I'll take questions. Representive Richman you're recognized for a question. Sorry Richardson that's okay men represent original alike and I apologize. Representative I just had a question did in in your bill have you ran that across the turning general's office or what was their response to I did not run it by the attorney general's office personally I know that Senator Gary Stubblefield I believe reached out to them and I that was why some of the deletions in his bill became more acceptable but by the time I knew that he had had deletions and some amendments engrossed in his bill it was too late for me to do that in order to present the bill today so I appreciate the question but this bill was filed February the eight. And to this day I may have had one or two people ask me what are you doing with this bill. So I I think if a bill is is filed for two months and no one comes forward I did get a call this morning from a former Speaker Gillam about the potential for losing federal funding in our institutions of higher learning but. With all due respect to former Speaker Gillam. He should have contacted me two months ago. But it contacted me this morning a little after seven or eight o'clock. Thank you. Represents like you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair representative Smith of my questions one of months log representative Richardson's Attorney General opinion on that but my next one are we going to see the bill that was amended from Senator Stubblefield or the present one. Well here's the thing and this current version is before you today whether you give it a thumbs up or thumbs down I believe Senator Stubblefield bill will go to the Senate floor and it will show up on the house side. I don't know what committee it's going to run through. It's it was run in city counties and local. So it may run through that committee I'm not sure but I didn't want to pull this back bill down and not run it to at least give us a chance to ask questions to challenge maybe sections that were hard to understand or or maybe dig into my rationale for doing what I'm doing and so this is our opportunity to take this bill apart. To answer the hard questions a completely understand follow up manager you're recognized some of this after you file do not have a brief discussion was that the penalties on the law enforcement is that what the stricken on that part right okay thank you Sir. The Collins you're recognized for a question thank you measure it representative isn't the role of the federal judiciary to interpret the constitutionality of federal statutes. You know what not being an attorney I can't really give you a definitive response but I would say that they do play a role the US Supreme Court plays a huge role when cases are brought before them but when we talk about states rights and our own constitution that everyone in this this a committee has raised our right hands sworn to defend as well as our our officers in blue behind me. We have a duty not only to the US constitution but also to the constitution of the state of Arkansas. Thank you you bet thank you representative Scott County you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair representative Smith how you see R. State Police out working with federal law enforcement side by side when federal law enforcement will obviously be bound to federal law representative Clowney I think it's very vital I think it's vital that we have that cooperation and I think if I. I think I saw Colonel Bryant behind me if he were to come in and come to the table and speak to the bill I think he would tell you that those relationships are critical whether they are A. T. F. F. B. I. or other agencies I don't know if you all know on the Committee but we have seventeen intelligence agencies in the United States there may be an additional one or two by now but when I was working in that field there were seventeen and I valued all of the intelligence gathering and all of the support that I gleaned from those relationships but. We can go back and ask ourselves to. What does the federal law say about marijuana. And we're does marijuana fit into federal law. As opposed to Arkansas law with medical marijuana being legal. So where do we where do we justify. That relationship with the law and maybe medical marijuana as a bad example but we allow it in this state under certain conditions but the federal law says it's illegal and so in so many ways there is a conflict between states and federal law and so this is this is just a a remedy that would prevent our own law enforcement our state employees from enforcing unlawful executive orders and maybe mandates that come down from the federal level. Representative Hudson you're recognized for a question. I'm used to see in the back of your head on a on this well it's tough all right I want to go back down to the penalties for law enforcement and that's at the bottom of page four beginning at line thirty one that you read through with this earlier talking about the potential for law enforcement to be charged with a misdemeanor and if they enforcer assist federal agencies are officers in the enforcement of any federal statute executive order or federal agency directives that conflicts with the Arkansas constitution article two section five or any Arkansas law. Practically speaking I know that article two section five of the Arkansas constitution is short and sweet. But I think that you and I both had discussions in the past about how busy we lawyers tend to be in trying to interpret what seemingly simple clauses may mean and certainly when we're talking about Arkansas law so for purposes of law enforcement who's going to be the arbiter to tell them whether or not a federal regulation or law is in conflict is there going to be some sort of report and and my concern is this especially when we're talking about some of the situations in which and and I know that you're familiar with this where the it may be an emergency situation or their call to to assist with something that's happening very quickly how do they know whether or not what they're being called to do would violate this section especially when we're talking about it you know charging with crime well I think that's a really great question which allows me to mention we have same. Federal Emergency Management Agency and. We have benefited from those joint cooperative efforts in our state. tornadoes flooding and so forth I think many scientists say we're basically due for a major catastrophic earthquake in the future. We don't have a crystal ball so we can't determine when that'll happen but FEMA would be there in those events. Those partnerships are not contrary to the Arkansas state constitution they're not illegal those are things that we should all be able to agree we need that support we need that encouragement from a. Federal our federal congressional delegation as well as those agencies that are prepared to come in and help alleviate the pain and suffering of our people this bill if you go back and look at line thirty three halfway through basically says or implicitly states that conflicts with our the Arkansas constitution and so as long as something does not conflict with the constitution of our state. Those partnerships are invaluable and I think you would hear that from those that are actively involved and engaged with our agency heads at the federal level and state level. Follow up manager you're recognized for a follow up thank you and and and I appreciate that and I think that you're right that in many cases it would be clear whether or not there was a conflict or not and but my question is one of consistency are we asking law enforcement now to interpret statutes and make a judgment call as to whether or not and a federal statute is in conflict with any law in Arkansas because it says any Arkansas are they now making those judgment calls on the fly are they all going to need to have legal counsel at the ready to make these conversations and also and you know what they get wrong. What if they if they decide that it didn't conflict and then someone else decides it dead who's who's going to be that person who makes those decisions I guess is what I'm asking nothing is ever one hundred percent and I think we can agree on that However. In this case I would say the Attorney General of the state of Arkansas would be someone that would weigh in and provide an opinion one thing I've learned from all of you attorneys is when I listen to you speak I need Merriam Webster NO with me. Four I need to ask a lot of questions because I don't speak legalese I'd love to be able to do that but I'm almost sixty two years old and there's no chance but I think the Attorney General and her staff of the attorneys would be able to weigh in and determined. Is this breaking the law for law officers to engage in this activity this executive order or not and so we always want to comply. Within the limits of the law and I know a lot of our fine a law enforcement officers at every level they typically go above and beyond the call of duty when called upon one last follow up manager one last fall thank you and in so I guess that brings me to that the last concern I have about this because we have both potential for criminal charges against a member of law enforcement if they if they violate this but we also have further down the rights of damages to someone who feels as though they were victimized by this how does that correlate with sovereign immunity given the fact that the state over the past several years has through a case law and and through application through the agency's has moved towards almost entirely immunizing this state from paying any sort of damages in any situation for any breach how do you reconcile the fact that the state has taken a very hard line on sovereign immunity with an absolute right to damages in the statute. Well I'm concerned about. Complete community I know in some cases there needs to be penalties assessed but that's that would be judged in a court of law but one of the individuals that will come and speak in favor of the bill in just a minute I believe he could better answer that question for you and what I respectfully ask that you give give me a pass the answer fully and I ask that again of one of my witnesses that the deal thank you. Representative Crawford you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair. First I want to say thank you thank you for bringing this I was reading the reading it to my husband out loud and I felt like a minute man and I saw saw standing around the state in protecting what is ours so thank you but my question is on Page two line five with everything that's going on in our great United States where it talks about acting nine through the United States constitution the people of several states created the United States government do you think it should say acting through the United States constitution created in seventeen seventy six so if they choose to go back and change something we have that document or is it necessary. Thank you for a representative Crawford for that question I. I think. That that that might be something that we could do but I don't think it would be necessary because in this bill when we when we use the phrase United States constitution it's very specific about what document we're talking about and so I wouldn't I wouldn't want to go back and amend and and edit the bill for that reason right there but to. I think. I think it's a decent bill there are no perfect bills as we know this is my fourth term in the house and I rarely. Had a perfect bill but. Sometimes a bill like this gets us closer. To what acceptable and and I'll use the word. More close to what could be perfect but it's a start and so with that I would just say I think it be better to leave it alone. Representive Richmond you're now recognized for a question thank you madam chair represent Smith the. Just wanna put a scenario out there for you right quick and some people will considered an extreme scenario but then again ruby ridge was extreme as far as I'm concerned say that federal agents came in here right now through all these doors. Interested you and rested some of the rest of us and took us away from this very discussion because of some constitutional law some executive order some type of over reach what what are law enforcement response be right now do you have any idea how they would respond to such a thing or local interstate law enforcement. Thank you representative Richmond I think A more thorough and complete response should come from. Probably Colonel Bryant but I would say the first thing that. Unless there was some organize plan and awareness of that action going to take place everyone in this room would need to comply. Whether it be. Down on the floor hands out and just be still don't make any unnecessary moves I think that would be the right response until we could. At least have our case adjudicated and dealt with through the courts if that was necessary I can't imagine. That happening without our state police. Knowing that there was going to be a raid those are those are very specific things that can happen when people don't a when people in power don't agree with what may be a meeting conversation is all about and so I've been in a couple of meetings in Asia where the Chinese police came in and and their soldiers and it is one of the most frightening things that you could live through. I've also been on the opposite side with the United States Army where we went in and snatched a high value target. And basically turned the tables on them and it's fear like you've never imagined unless you had been in that scenario. But maybe Colonel bracket add more depth to your. A request for an answer. Thank you represent Smith thank you madam chair. Thank Cavenaugh you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair my question is and you might have said this. I just went out of my mind. We're talking about Senator Stubblefield had a similar bill and he had amended it to take out the Problems with the police officers being fined in the crime now is that something that you're going to do if this passes out that you're going to an amended before it goes to this all right when it gets to the Senate to match is that what we're talking about doing well I can do that and that's very good that you brought that up one of the things that Senator Stubblefield did and I was in that committee this morning listening and I've read through his bill I believe what he took out was the if if a law enforcement officer just. Won't comply with the constitution of the state of Arkansas and there's penalties after a certain after an infraction they would be they would lose their certification and I think he did take that out any did remove some of the financial penalties but then in one's one area I think he even increased the dollar penalty but it was like multiple times that the law was broken by that law enforcement officer. Thank you. Represent guess what you're recognized for a question thank you madam. Thank you madam chair representative Smith when we're trying to determine if a violation has occurred with that decision following the local prosecutor or who would make that decision. Thank you representative Gazaway I I would think and I'm a layman not an attorney a brilliant attorney section is we have here in this room today but I would think that. Local prosecutors where an event occurred in in cooperation with the Attorney General would play a huge role in where we go from here following an issue and I would I would encourage. You know people that are caught up in that type of thing. To comply one hundred percent with law enforcement until they had their day in court because our men and women in uniform as well as our law enforcement officers they're highly trained individuals they're they're quick to make a judgment call and and I would say ninety nine percent of the time it's a correct judgment but that's that's when we on the other side of the baggage would need to be in compliance to prevent someone from firing or discharging their weapon when. It was it would be unnecessary so local prosecutors And also the AG. Thank you. You need to follow up representative. Seeing no other questions we do have We have about nine people who have signed up to speak for the bill the chair will entertain a representative McCauley recognized thank you madam chair I'd like to make a motion to limit testimony to three minutes per Speaker members we have a motion on the floor to limit three minutes per Speaker and we have nine any discussion of the motion all in favor of the motion please say aye aye All opposed no the ayes have it each Speaker will be limited to three minutes. And your time will start if you've not been here before your time starts once you come to the table and and your data file yourself then we'll start of time here for sure may I grab my bottle water sure. Of. The first person who has signed up to speak for the bill is Dallas green Mr green if you'd like to come forward to the table. I'm sorry ms green I apologize. The screen I knew that and I apologize. I just have a seat and and because we need to get everything on the record so that you state your name and I'm Dallas green I am a spokesperson for again numbers of Arkansas but I'm not the spokesperson for this bill I should have been called a little bit further down actually thought I was a little bit further down the list I just want to say and I know teams going to sex and stuff but I carry this in my purse everywhere I go it's a copy of the constitution and for some reason we have gotten things backwards through the years our system is set up from the ground up the people are the ones that are in charge the people are the ones that make the rules and make the constitution and this starts on the local level the local you know you keep hearing about how the election is a mess and how everything is a mess and it's all because of the local level we have to clean up the local level why is that is if the bottom is so powerful why are you having the federal government be in charge of everything I mean this was created because a monarch was controlling everything and right now that's where we're going back to and I'm just not gonna say anything else other than I do support the bill and it's very important and I'll let him go ahead and finish. Representing gun owners of Arkansas. Thank you miss Greene I appreciate it we just go down the list as to the in when they signed up so the our next person is here and Maynard is Maynard. Thank you for having me. I'm a lifelong resident of an incorporated Pulaski County and I am a member of gun owners of Arkansas I come to you today to ask for your support of H. B. fourteen thirty five AS one of many Arkansas residents who live in a rural part of our state my right to bear arms is not a concern because of hunting it's a matter of life or death. I consider this bill to be a pro life bill. We live in an area patrolled by the Pulaski County sheriff's office we are very thankful for their protection but we also know that they have limitations due to the enormous land area they're tasked with covering. Many times or maybe one deputy for forty square miles. That puts the citizens the position to be the first responders instead of the deputies. The legislation we have seen proposed at a federal level in the past few weeks jeopardizes our ability to protect our families. The tenth amendment was created to protect the states from the federal over reach. It's been tested many times in New York versus United States. Determine that the government can encourage the states to adopt certain regulations through the spending power of federal funds or by commerce power but it cannot directly compel the state's him to enforce federal regulations. Imprint's versus United States the Supreme Court ruled that the part of the Brady handgun violence prevention act violated the tenth amendment. The act required the state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on people attempting to purchase handguns the Supreme Court said the force participation of the state and the actual administration of a federal program was unconstitutional. Every state is different I've been to California New York several others they don't look like Arkansas. I thank our founding fathers knew the law would not be a one size fits all what's good for them may not be good for us. Our state needs to be protected from unconstitutional mandates from the federal government we are more than capable of governing ourselves or our choice in state representatives like all of you. Please allow this to be considered by the representatives that we chose to be our voice in the state legislature thank you for your time. Thank you Miss man Maynard next we have Raymond Godfrey Leman strong women. You may be outside Mr Lehman. Next person to sign up to speak is Wayne beach Mr beach you'll come forward. Press that button and you'll be ready to go. Thank you madam chairman. My name is Wayne beach I'm Susan I'm not represent anybody. But to me this is a bipartisan no brainer. It doesn't matter who's president it doesn't matter who the government is it doesn't matter who any the elected officials are. What matters we have a standard to go by. We have two of them we have US constitution and we have our state constitution. Everyone of us made a everyone of you made a sworn statement first one on offer to share duty you signed a piece of paper that said that you will protect. Support. And defense. The constitution of the United States the constitution of Arkansas. I understand there's some some issues about the hall we have conflicting laws. Okay but I guarantee these officers back here if they don't know the difference between those those differences when they go to confront somebody. Should they really be enforcing the law. Should judges. Or prosecutors be trying to prosecute enforce that law if they don't know what those constitutional mandates are. Everyone of us have a responsibility I'm a better. I took that same this same this aw producir duty this one test of form all obligation to defend this country. Just like you did. When you were elected office. I want you understand. Please understand how big you to understand. That your your obligation is not to me or to you is to who elected you. Just like those share center right here who voted you into that office. It wasn't the federal government. It was the people that were in your district would you be Democrat or anything else like I said it doesn't really matter. Who is president who's governor and who are the legislators. We have a standard to go by. And I beg you let's go by that standard just let one other thing. It doesn't matter what you're what you're Christian. It doesn't matter where you are Jewish and doesn't matter what your muscle you still have the same enable rights. And we should we're here to protect. I hope that you all consider my statements I hope that you go home and think about this after you vote. I hope that you do or do pass on this is very important because it's not it's more than a gun issue this is about freedom of speech this is about the religious freedom this is about freedom of the press this is about freedom the due process thank you rights to due process Mr feature three I thank you thank you kind of get the claim thank you very much bye bye. The next individual who signed up to speak is Roger kid Mr kid he'll come for. Be sure to push the button right there on the microphone so we can hear you all right you're running Roger kid from Jonesboro Arkansas. Don't touch it again just let when it's kind of backwards when you see the red light we're going backwards the tenth amendment is our is our only foundation against unconstitutional federal law. And I'm not sure if it's the same as brands. And he doesn't understand he doesn't understand how he told me the other day the defense were in charge. We'll it's my belief that the constitution is both the frame government so I can exercise my own rights. And I've heard the six Amendment talked about many times in here this bill and the pre and a couple of previous bills and I suffice to say how many how many of you know that that's the only bill that's the only amendment that contain civil and individual liberties and. So I would like to read a one paragraph from the federalist and I'd also like to say that every up I know captain Carter districts C. A. S. P. approach law of city PD there in Jonesborough I have not met a law enforcement officer in my home town and county who will who does not support this bill. I had some of our conversation which may S. P. here in the capital today can you imagine our law enforcement going to enforce federal law that's not in Arkansas constitution the danger that would put them in. What I will go ahead and read and of read this and I'll be done. It's not just James Madison from federalist of number forty five and I'm quoting this is the powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and define. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous an infant. The former will exercised principally on external objects which is our federal government. War peace negotiation and foreign commerce. That's the only power to for our federal government is supposed to have. He goes on to explain the powers reserved to the several state will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs concern the lives liberties and properties of the people. And in the internal order improvement and prosperity of the State. I will make one more comment and I appreciate your time and and I'm honored to be here. My sheriff is supposed to guard my liberties. More than to enforce the law. He's he's a constitutional peace officer. He's supposed to protect my liberties and rights before he enforces the law thank you Sir Bragg I love you brother thank you miss right bill thank you Mr kid. Our next person who signed up as Michael comment. Commit to comment. Thank you for allowing me the time to speak. I'm nobody I'm just a guy Michael comments or forget that part everybody's pretty much on the same page it looks like this is a this about individual freedoms this is about us we the people. We support our law enforcement we support law in order there's no question that. We don't want to be run over by somebody else who. We're talking about people to the don't know us they don't live here they don't understand the difference that's fine they have their responsibilities we have ours we can take care of our own no words like this is emergencies different. Mercy situations happen we ask for help that's fine but we're sorry we're our own people. I had a different statement drive by everybody I'm saying the same thing your bill saying we we have a constitution. I mean. I carry this everywhere I go my Bible. What constitution. And I'm a Republican said Mr if you sit down at the microphone so the people watching online can hear you that be helpful well run back through all that but. You know I Hey it's simple I'm proud of my country I love my country I serve my country and I volunteered to lay my life down for this country. And I do it for my country my state and anybody in this room. But I have rights just like everybody else in this room I don't wanna be trampled over I just wanna live free raise my family. Di peaceably. Thank you okay thank you also have the passes thank you Mr comment. Next up to speak is J. Morgan this we're gonna fuel come forward and identify yourself you'll have three minutes. I'm Jan Morgan I am representing of the national founder of to a women we are a non partisan national legislative activist organization I'm also and in our a state police and Arkansas state police and U. SEC a certified firearms instructor and a certified NRA certified range safety officer up pretty much everyone is that what I wanted to say today other than this I want to reach out to you and just express my belief that this is probably the most critical bill that you will ever have the chance to vote on as a state representative for the state of Arkansas so much is at stake right now I don't know about you but every single day when I turn my television on I cringe watching you know different assaults on our United States constitution and bill of rights and it's it's happening so often that you know it people seem to be desensitized to it which is just heartbreaking to me I can tell you after listening to the speakers today and people were asking about law enforcement I work with the lawn for a lot of law enforcement officers in fact of in my local sheriff's department in my council they send me officers who are having trouble passing their marksmanship exams at the academy and my job is to help get them prepared to pass those exams I talked to a lot of police officers of a lot of police officers shoot at my indoor firearms training facility and I can tell you that as we hear about all of these unconstitutional gun control laws that are that are talked about coming out of the Biden administration. The police officers I know have told me that they will walk off their jobs before they will enforce those laws those are the police officers I know I also know that we live in Arkansas which is one of the most heavily armed states in America the people of Arkansas love god we love our guns and we love our rights and I can tell year. That this is a pro life bill as someone else alluded to earlier in that if you allow it even if our own law enforcement officers will not enforce these unconstitutional bills if you allow federal agents to come into our state and barge into people's homes and take their a are fifteens because they didn't pay an eight hundred dollar tax or take away their semi automatic guns because they refused to list them to provide a list of the federal government so the government could publish that until everybody in America who owns firearms and where their farms are located if you do that to the people of this state I'm telling you that many people will stand where I'm standing today and let me tell you if the federal government comes in and tries to enforce these unconstitutional laws on me. I will not comply. I will not go to jail I'm sorry. Representative Smith. I will not comply I will not go to jail some things are worth dying for sometimes you have to draw a line in the sand and folks this is where I draw my line mortgage your time is your time I'm asking you to support this bill thank you very much. Our next individual who signed up is ten Loggains strong winds. Thank you madam chair committee I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you on behalf of this bill hi my name is Tim Loggains I'm with gun owners of Arkansas. I thought a lot about what was going to say today. And it came to me we hold these truths to be self evident all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Among those life liberty pursuit of happiness. And to protect those rights government is instituted among men. That's fourteen thirty five. Very seldom or the legislators get the opportunity. To overtly protect the rights of the citizens. H. B. fourteen thirty five gives you the chance. there is no more important bill that will be faced this session. The people of Arkansas are very concerned. A federal overreach this bill protects the citizens of Arkansas. One other thing I want to touch on then I'll be open for questions there's been some that alluded to the fact this is is sometimes all anti law enforcement it is not. This bill was written and designed to protect law enforcement officers. This bill gives officers the ability to say no I'm not going to violate my oath to the state of Arkansas and to United States constitution. Right now officers face a choice of. A polling Rolf. And losing their job or feeding the family this bill gives them the opportunity to say no I'm not going to come take your guns no I'm not going to stop you from worshipping no I'm not going to interfere with your ability to free speech. Because the law says I don't have to. And it's wrong. In closing I just like to say I ask that you please give this I do pass. The people of Arkansas deserve it. And this is a responsibility that is very solemn for y'all. And it's also an opportunity with that I'll take any questions you may have. Thank you Mr Walken's we don't have any questions appreciate your time today the next individual to sign up is Paul Calvert Mr Calvert. Thank you committee my name is Paul Calvert. So there's some questions about how it would be determined state or local official and forced the federal law or rule violates Arkansas constitution on page four or line ten there's an easy easily identifiable list of violations are clearly spelled out well even the possibility to include more laws or rules that might be passed in the future we also have a great deal case law on the books dealing with various different instances or situations so in your city years ago we heard about a city or state officials were stopping and frisking people. Without probable cause with serious human rights violation went on for awhile finally stopped it thankfully. To imagine there's a major natural disaster federal agents come here to Arkansas to help address security and safety issues or whatever else. Now imagine a federal bureaucrat. Kind of gets a little bit too big for his britches and he directs federal agents to randomly stop stop and frisk innocent our Kansans without probable cause. Under the guise of public safety. This bill state local officials would not be allowed to help or system this treacherous an illegal practice. Any officer who who does help the federal agents carry out this bill these illegal searches could be charged unclassified misdemeanor and lose his or her law enforcement certification for six months for the or possibly receive a fine of five hundred dollars I think this is one of those things that can help deal with government officials to kind of get out of hand in and perhaps emergency situations or when they just a little too big for their britches in in federal situations it could it could be M. a lot of different situations arise but I think it's it's it's one of those things that we should not be allowing state officials to enforce or help to enforce. federal rules regulations or laws that violate our rights and I I think sometimes is going to be a some ambiguity that's that's the reality but. But when there's no ambiguity let's hold them accountable let's do it please pass this bill thank you. Thank you Mr Calvert we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representative Smith you're recognized close for your bill. Did I miss you against. Mr Bradley come forward and apologize. I was there right. You. Yes. You speak against the bill. Three are yes ma'am okay you're recognized please state your name and your three minutes will be yes but we do understand not the most popular thing in the room right now to but I want to say it's the same say the same thing we said in the previous bill. I am I think Gary with that the chiefs can go into more detail about a certain situation that would put us in a bind and we're can't support anything that's that's going to get us criminally charge for in enforcing something we've sworn to enforce. I mean we we just have issue with that we do not have an issue with good people have an firearms we have no issue with that and we will not go to your house if you're a good person and take your your guns ever. I spoke to every share from the state there is not a sheriff in the state's interest in going to a good person's house and taken against or too busy trying to take away from the bad people so I want that clear that's not the intention and although and I have every bit of it respect. For a representative Smith in center stub afield and what they're trying to do but the way this bill particular bills written we just we can't support. Thank you. Under manager Gary sipes Director the Arkansas Association of Chiefs of Police I echo what sure Bradley just said we support a lot of this and have respect for representative but I do want to bring up a a situation of where president trump issued an executive order in for a morning ever law enforcement agencies across the nation to have a policy on the Joe columns as the association we were picked to be the credentialing agent for the state of Arkansas. Two hundred thirty eight law enforcement agencies miscible council of state agencies send them their policies are sworn affidavits lay and that they had a no chokehold policy. If this law was in effect. The number to earn thirty nine of us because I would have been charged as well Enforcing this this executive order from president trump. Again we we support a lot of what you said it but it. The penalties for the law enforcement that are stated in this bill there's no way that we can support this on officers going to be charged with a Class les misdemeanor if the if the enforces the federal statute or and my son is As US marshal may depend on local law enforcement every day arresting people so. That is the reason we're as the chiefs we cannot support this is not because of. Anything else in the bill we do is we have to support our law enforcement. Thank you very much. Represent Richmond you have a question. Yes madam chair. And I apologize for making this last even a little bit longer. I don't care which one you guys senses but I've heard on a couple occasions now that you're constitutional you're sworn to support constitution and when you say that to me it sounds like you're saying I am sworn to support even unconstitutional laws and executive orders because you may know differential what we're talking about in this particular bill is unconstitutional. Regulations and laws that go against our state constitution so could you please provide just a little more clarification on that. The of. In this state or any across the nation federal law is is recognized as the suffering of law. We are bound to abide by those laws it and and if we see a violation then we are to take action on it the next in line is the state law and then ordinances in our of our. I don't know if I answer your question remote. It I think you just answered it that it doesn't matter if it's constitutional or not. Of federal laws consider Supreme I thank you madam chair. Thank you gentlemen for coming forward representive Smith you're recognized to close for your bill. Colleagues thank you for listening today thank you for being here. Thank you to those that provided testimony pro and con on the bill. In response to. Our friends in law enforcement. And in response to what Mr Boyd said. I want to just. It rate if you are swearing to uphold the Arkansas state constitution. You will not be breaking the law. It's simple. And like many of you have taken an oath sworn allegiance and taken a oath numerous times in my life. And I entered that. Reserve a day am very cautiously. And I think. All of my life I want to be. Law abiding I want to teach my children and now. Eight grandchildren and two more on the way for October November to respect the law. To be patriotic when it comes to our nation's flag our national anthem and the pledge of allegiance. I want to mentor them. And I think this bill even though there are some areas of concern. Put us on good footing maybe a place to begin that will make this state better. And that's that's that's what I want to do and so with that I move do pass and ask for a good vote. Members we have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no. The noes have it the bill this failed. Well the roll. Representative Ferguson. Representative Ferguson votes No representative flowers representative flowers votes No representative mix representative next votes No representative Richmond representative Richmond both CS representative Cavenaugh. Representative Cavenaugh votes yes representative Gazaway. Representative Gazaway votes yes representative berry representative berry representative Crawford. President of Crawford votes yes representative Scott representative Scott votes No representative slate. Representative slate from CS representative Clowney representative Clowney votes No representative Cooper. Representative Cooper votes yes representative Richardson. Representative Richardson votes No representative Collins. Representative Collins votes No representative McCollum. Representative McCollum votes No representative had sent representive Hudson votes No representative under would. Representive Underwood votes yes representive Smith. Representative Brandt Smith votes yes. The Bill failed. The next bill is house bill fifteen oh eight House Bill fifteen of a. Representative brown. Members this bill has a financial impact statement. That'll be on your desk the financial impact statement representative brown you're recognized present your bill. Thank you madam chair and committee I'm here to present house bill fifteen NO eight today Thank you all all are where back on may thirtieth and thirty first we had some of peaceful what started out as a peaceful March and then we had quite a bit of anarchy that it seem to explode on our Capitol grounds and we're very thankful that are none of our capital police or state police were injured. We also had a traffic stoppage and honor interstate six there are I six thirty twice a which the state police were able to resolve. A. I wanted to say before I get started that this bill has been reviewed by the Attorney General who made six suggestions. A it has the support of our county sheriff's association. It's been reviewed by Secretary cook and the Arkansas state police and Secretary cook A. as they are. Let me get this straight she is secretary of the Arkansas department of public safety in the Director of the Arkansas division on law enforcement standards and training. and she made the she sent me some suggestions which we incorporated and I heard from our former capitol police chief had and who applauded this bill. This bill is initially some Tennessee legislation but it has been amended by some of the people up accepted those amendments by some of the people that I mentioned earlier. And So it's an Arkansas bill. This. Legislation is. Ten pages and deals with a lot of Arkansas Code of the first the sections one through twelve amended Portions of title five our criminal offenses and section thirteen amends title twelve which is law enforcement emergency management and Military Affairs and section fourteen amends title sixteen which add a section to practice procedure and courts. The. I think the first thing that I would like to say. So I thank all the people who help me with this. And As used in this. Chapter. First responder means a law enforcement officer or firefighter emergency medical provider an emergency management official. And this legislation addresses people who come from out of state to Arkansas specifically to a being to engage in or incite a riot. And. Hi addresses we already had a low on obstructing highways but it increases the panel the Increases it from a Class. See to a class a misdemeanor and it establishes that the Attorney General may conduct investigations. Of riots aggravated rights inciting a riot and extra obstructing a highway or other public passage. And it does three have placed a required hold on certain arrestees. So. I am not a law enforcement officer or a criminal attorney so some of the questions I will have to defer to other people who are and I've met chief our colonel Bryant is here along with lieutenant land and they have agreed to be available to answer questions. Representative Collins you're recognized for a question. Thank you manager representative Graham so we're we're really stepping up to some pretty severe penalties here on a lot of these and the way the language is written in a few places is pretty broad maybe unintentionally so but I want to make sure I I drill down on what exactly we're doing on the the battery and third degree which is typically a class A. misdemeanor and this is on page two. What what we've done here is create something that for if you. Even if you transfer bodily fluids it doesn't say what they are onto a first responder doesn't say if they're on duty or not that can be a Class D. felony so that means sweat or tears or spent as you say here it doesn't even matter if they are on duty or not they might not even know that it is a first responder just as they knowingly because the physical contact not that they know that it's a first responder so I guess my question is what do you think will. If they don't know it's a first responder we actually deterring anything that we are trying to deter with this because I think your goal is to stop things against first responders but if they're not uniformed if they don't on duty how to even out. well if if colonel Ryan wants to step forward and assist me with this are Lieutenant land however my my thought. In my intention with this yes these are first responders who are responding to a situation and it would be obvious that they were first responders because they would indeed be in uniform and they would be attending to the situation. And I can understand that might be the intent but there are other sections of the criminal code that do talk about I think even in this bill the talk about a first responder being on duty if this does not have that specification. Representative Connie you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair representative right I'm over to your right. Sorry I don't know if you can send him over here okay thank you. And. So. Inciting riot under this bill is a Class D. is a misdemeanor unless the defendant lives in another state and has traveled to the state with the purpose to commit the offence in which case it's a Class D. felony he talked to me about the the motivation behind that provision and also what your views or any lawyers that you've talked to views are on its constitutionality because on its face it strikes me as as unconstitutional to separate the the classes of offense and that way thanks. The intent of the US was to deter. People from coming outside of our state which many. It's my understanding that many of the people who did come to little rock and demonstrate and Damage property damage our capital of with I forgot to say that the damage to our capital alone was over seventy five thousand dollars and I've I feel like we really got off lucky with that because of the way things work but the the just dissuade people of who may not be our Kansans we want if our Kansans want to demonstrate if our Kansans want to support something. Demonstrations are not a problem it's it's when they escalate and the concern is that there are people who want to create these kinds of. Havoc. What really our Kansans who come here from other places and create these kinds of disturbances and we do not want that to happen and in our state we want a Parkinson's are are you concerned about something and want to demonstrate that's that's lawful but we don't want people to come here to incite riot. And damage property. Represent referred to you have a question if your pressure microphone I can recognize. Thank you my recognized thank you. Brown. I'm when I'm looking at the. The language and thinking back to the events. Over the summer I know personally people who were participating in demonstrations and involved in protest and some of those people. Got caught up in The reaction response to those who were not there to participate in the protest and it seems that once you had one or two bad actors or a few pockets of bad actors the whole event everyone participating became rioters or looters or property damage or is and I guess my concern is escalating these penalties when they're already laws and penalties that exist to address vandalism to address violence. Capt. combining all of these. And characterizing it as Ryan it. I guess I'm I'm concerned about how a protest or demonstration. Can turn into a ride and everyone involved in be characterized and or arrested as someone who's violating the law when their president and and an abiding by the law so can you would address I guess. Why we're putting all of these things together all of these codes together and escalating the penalties. To describe a riot when if one person in sight something. That could you know it can affect so many people like how would I guess the question is how would we avoid innocent people from being arrested and kind of caught up in the melee of a few people transitioning or changing one event to another under this bill well thank you for that question but I think that that might be Interpreting this differently than than what it what it is I mean we already have code on the book that says what battery and third in the third degree yes however of the portion like on page two just for instance of the person a person commits battering the third degree yes one three four that's already in code and those are all Class eight misdemeanors but five the person knowingly causes physical contact with the first responder that a reasonable person would regard as extremely offensive or provocative including without limitation spitting throwing or otherwise transferring bodily fluids pathogens or human waste on the person of a first responder of. Those are I mean. It it's important to line that out. People who are just. In a demonstration who are. Lawfully demonstrating are not going to be this does not pertain to them this pertains to people who are are doing things that. Could hurt. Another. Human being. Follow up madam chair. You're recognized for one follow up with thank you very much it and I think this was raised in an earlier question but at just drawing back to some of the events that occurred I know that on a few times the response was such that we had different agencies responding with on and some of home didn't necessarily have identifiable easily identifiable uniforms and cars that were on marked and so when I look at you know the intent to peace. I'm wondering S. side from someone knowingly attending and participating in the demonstration in protest how would we. be able to ascertain. It intent if someone's intent that as far as we know this based on their their presence is to participate in the demonstration and at the same time you have. I'm Mary add of different officers who may have on maybe game and fish you may not even think that there are respond or and you know they are asked to get off the sidewalk in go home or a and that kind of thing happened and people might have been moving in complying but not moving fast enough and then there arrested for a number of things I didn't even understand why they were being arrested those are some of the things that happened and I'm wondering how we would actually be dealing with the issue of people violating the law if again a demonstration is now. Captured under the banner of rye it. With all of these codes falling under that category. We'll. I didn't see anything in this legislation doesn't deal with anything as innocent as just walking down the street. This deals with people who are intentionally in for inflicting a threat or or harm on to a first responder. And you know walking down the street Just doesn't fall into that category I mean we're not trying to penalize people who aren't doing anything wrong. Represent represent the sleep you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair representative brown says the co sponsor on this and I wanna make sure of going to run on the intentions of this that this was because of the incident at the capitol back in may I believe correct. And during this of. When the state governor declared a state of emergency that's one went from a demonstration to have was on his exit on his order of of declared an emergency in the state police came in that time give lawful commands to those students person those who didn't were arrested so most of this language is saying this bill is designed for when it is a ride and not a demonstration correct. Absolutely yes thank you thank you madam chair. Representative calling you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair and and again I just want to go back to the perhaps unintended consequences here and I want to ask you whether or not I'm I'm reading this right for the aggravated assault against first responder which starts at the bottom of page to aggravated assault every type in our current statute is it creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury this does not in this scenario to tell me if I'm wrong if somebody throws a bottle in the direction of a first responder it lands and it rose to their feet and they happen to have an open carry gun on their waste that right there with no injury to the officer or the other first responder is a Class C. felony. Which is ten years potentially in prison is is this right am I reading this right based on what we have in the statute not the intent but literally the the writing in the statute I believe that's right I really don't know I would have to I know colonel Bryant is here and Lieutenant lan. Excuse me. Mr sturgeon's could could garner brought him up no I know I'm just a minute. Minute. Colonel. Representative Crawford hang on. Colonel bright you're not signed up to speak for against the bill. No he's not signed up to speak for against the bill but I was informed that he would be present to help me answer some of these questions for which I am not qualified to answer I'm not of a law enforcement officer or an attorney. What are the wishes of the committee. The representative Scott. That. Are you requesting colonel Bryant without objection are you at without objection will allow colonel Brian colonel bright if you can answer the question police to. You might want to reinstate your question occurred around okay so I'm I'm concerned about the breath here that we have in the language is written not the intent but the aggravated assault in particular it says that the person has to knowingly cause contact including without limitation throwing an object such as a bottle. At the time of the contact the first responders dischargers official duties and the contact. One of them says involves the use or display of a deadly weapon so you just means if you're displaying a deadly weapon there you've got on you I doesn't actually require injury to the first responder and in fact doesn't have to enter them at all and that's a Class C. felony is this correct read and is this going farther than perhaps or what. Broadrick to the Arkansas state police thank you for your question. I will just kinda answered since I've heard a couple of just a your first concern was most of the time we have uniformed personnel out there they will be in mark uniforms are under covers very seldom affect arrest so. The issues we have here at the capitol we were all in clearly marked uniforms state police as well as little rock police of any enforcement action is usually taken it is by uniformed personnel worst case scenario if it isn't a under cover agent he would definitely have to display its banks and a police officer all that before before they would take any action a notify the person what we learned from the the events late may early June this near you pose they threw a bottle of that role and didn't really anybody or you know we're not going to affect and rest on that I mean what we we and we encountered was bricks. we had people with firearms by display they didn't. The point is but they were handing guns out the window shooting live rounds during the protest those kind of things we really experienced and and some of the other questions is from representative flowers we would. Usually only take actions of those in one who are the aggressors because it points we had people find commercial grade fireworks at us and that's why we got involved in the bill with representative brown because it ninety eight didn't really cover the fireworks we were have an art troopers on the interstate when they took over the interstate or foreign commercial grade fireworks at is that when they landed was multiple explosions so this is really it is not for the you know we all for first amendment rights all for protesting but when it turns violent that's when it poses. Dangers for law enforcement first responders so I think that's the target of that of the bill is that not to the fact that paid if you know we just might get off the sidewalk with a race we don't do that so I don't know if I simply answer your question there but you know one I know we had a trooper in the in the head with a rock you member the news conference we did we had the rocket the trooper got hit with that kind of personnel who we seek charges. it try to you know I think it's a deterrent is what representative round is trying to do this bill to those who choose to protest Beilein violate the law. Follow up you're recognized for a follow up thank you and I appreciate any doesn't sense answer the question I I think those instances that you're describing gave examples of our absolutely understandable you'd want some strong punishments there I'm concerned about the other things that might be included here in adversely that are not necessarily violent not fireworks not rocks in the head bottles rolling on the ground and someone no doubt about your discretion in terms of enforcing that you know but we have this bill in front of us that I believe literally expands far beyond the examples that you gave and including I would say the right contacts we're not just talking about the right contacts for a lot of these first responder the third degree battery aggravated assault those aren't necessarily in a right situation and the third degree battery is not even uniform so or on duty such want to clarify that thank you Sir. And when you did speak about bottles you know it could be a big glass bottle but frozen bottles of water or dangerous in that's what was being thrown. Represent flowers you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair I'm looking and I just want to go back to the the question that I had in the point that I was making I'm looking at section twelve and under section twelve C.. Are all actually all throughout that section it refers to highway but it also says obstructing highway and that kind of thing but it also says or public passage and at the C. section twelve C. says obstructing a highway or other public passage is a Class ade misdemeanor so this particular section changes from a Class C. to a class a misdemeanor and again you know if I'm participating in a protest and something happens a few feet away from me I'm not participating in it in the violence and you know what we know how things can get because I'm I am in no way supportive of Not not only the support of I'm supportive of measures that would harshly punish violence against our first responders but I'm looking at a section of the bill that is not about that and not only is it not about that it it not only addresses obstructing the highway which I know is can be dangerous for people like what we saw in the interstate but when it says or public passage. That can mean a sidewalk that can mean you know a street where people are walking to protest so I'm just wondering why that is included in this bill under the banner of riots well it's not under I mean the bill the general addresses what occurred during the riotous times but this is you know obstructing the highway or or passage and when you stop traffic like that a ambulances cannot get through police cannot get through if I'm transporting a family member to the hospital and it's an emergency those people can't get through and you know it's it's. It's dangerous to stop people from being able to freely move. Okay I can add to that representative flowers is is what we experience on the on the interstate first of all we it we gave five different warnings for them to please leave the interstate if you think about it interstate six thirty you know there's several things we have to worry about what we call secondary accidents once they shut that interstate now it sees trafficking you worry about other traffic running into cars who have stopped when the main concerns was is interstate six thirty you have children you have you A. M. S. you have Baptist hospital with people emergency they couldn't get there because the interstates were blocked this is for again we didn't participate in this part of the draft a bill to help you know public passage only thing comes to my mind is. What if they blocked the tunnel. To me that's a public passage way but if they block that and then we give the orders for them to leave and they don't don't leave I think we we we I know during the protest we used a lot of trying to use a lot of voluntary compliance if you really think about a Saturday Sunday. Monday we may know rest. We we tried to get him to voluntarily comply with the curfew. and I think that you see is where again they violated curfew we made no arrests have to do it but that's once they through the the big brick through the window at McDonald's and then we that's when we took enforcement action so we used a lot of discretion in this measures but again I think you know the if we're gonna use system majority this is going to be the the main players the instigators of the one who take violent actions against police officers so. That's my comment on that. And one of their I mean we need to take into consideration it was not only the activity that happened here on the capitol grounds but the Pharmacy association building was set on fire and windows were broken out of numerous businesses on capitol Avenue a church was set on fire I mean a lot of things happened in Little Rock. In those in that short period of time and we're generally a peaceable people and that you know said I have people coming in from out of state or wherever to a incite riot or encourage people to to get violent of we just want to discourage all that. Seeing no other questions we do have some individuals who signed up to speak for against the bill we have Jeff Rosenzweig who is signed up to speak against the bill thank you colonel brought for coming forward Mr Rosenzweig if you'll come forward. Jeffersons Y. Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers of the bill has a number of constitutional problems and also is really unnecessary because current law covers of the actions that are involved I call your attention of if you want to go to page. Page two and I believe representative Collins represent Clowney I think mentioned that's to you've got a situation where if you are a resident of another state you were punished more severely and then if you are a resident of this state that is of extremely dubious constitutionality under number of United States Supreme Court precedence of count of two rivers which will sands versus ROW and Memorial Hospital versus Maricopa county you simply cannot treat for purposes of the criminal law you cannot treat out of state residents. More severely and this is this is not just a you know people say wandering in from San Francisco to go to will you know come to little rock or some sort of anti for people if that's what this is somewhere for someone and chairman Dalby so home town to wander over from the turn lanes on state line Avenue and and B. crossing crossing a state line so that the whole thing is of of dubious constitutionality and with in my opinion almost certainly would get struck down of on on that basis secondly you have a void for vagueness problem go up on page two two of of. Page lines fourteen and fifteen knowingly causes of physical contact with the first responder that a reasonable person would regard is extremely offenses or provocative menaces including without limitation. Including without limitation of. Means there other things besides the throwing or waste in whatever and if you just look at the first part this is clearly going to be void for vagueness what is physical contact with a reasonable person would regard as offensive or provocative what what is it I mean is that you got to tell people what it is give people guidance as to what it is that they have done of done wrong or would be doing wrong what are that. That type of thing without specific guidance is it heard. As to the conduct of would be on would be unconstitutional then you've got the then you've got the question of do you know what's is it whether it's a first responder or not of. The on page three line eleven the talks about the physical contact regards results in serious bodily injury while in the criminal code we don't use of the phrase bodily injury we used the term physical injury is this something different or is it the same thing we have there's all sorts of case law as to what physical injury is in serious physical injury incentive throwing a different term is going to is going to cause of vagueness now the problem another problem is is there not amending the aggravated assault statute here in section three on page bottom of page to top of page three they're creating a whole new different aggravated assaults section which. Appears to have and and the aggravated assault Is covered that what they're talking about here and aggravated assault is already covered by battery in the first degree war of criminal attempt to commit battery in the first degree there's simply no need to create a brand new offense when when the when the. Injury component of that they're trying to put in here is all is already in violation of the law and could be a Class B. or even some in some instances request Y. felony So it's of. If there were if the you felt you needed to increase the punishment for something of an art in treating everyone treating everyone equally whether they happen to be Arkansas residents are residents of some other State. You could take the current statutes that are in effect and state if you file if this happens then this is a Class C. felony request B. felonies opposed to whatever the lesser offenses but this is a in addition to be unconstitutional alanine vagueness this creates havoc that just simply doesn't need to. We need to be there because this are statutes already covered. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Committee are there anyone any members that have a question for. For witness. Okay representative Gazaway you're recognized. Thank you Mr chair thank you Mr Rosenzweig and I just wanna say to representative brown that I liked the intent of what you're trying to do here thank you got a good bill and think maybe with some amendments based on some of the things that Mr Rosenzweig said because I went through the bill and my my notes it's as if he were readings on my notes some of the issues that I had with some of the provisions of the bill but one thing that I would like to get your comment on Mr Rosenzweig is in section fourteen. about the required hold on certain arrestees were basically if you're rested it requires a twelve hour hold. do you see any problems with that also all right I do and I I should've I should've of mentions something about that I think that may be an incursion onto rulemaking powers of this of the Supreme Court secondly you have the the our question if you're going to have an extreme could end up in a domestic disturbance situation like we have a an overload of of facilities including a bunch of people who. Who are yes swept up and don't need I don't need to be there the only of. the S. there would be an escape hatch possibly from that subject the United States in Arkansas constitutional provisions or a or a a valid court order and subject to be It could be regarded it could be regarded as enough of an escape hatch to avoid the constitutional problem the judge of the judge we just have to currently over rule the twelve hour or twelve hour delay release that's the way I that's the way I read it again you're going to run into a problem because the judge would have to make. apparently would have to make written findings and if you have a. Situation where you're or centrally running churning people through to determine who you're keeping who you're not the written findings are either going to delay things or they're going to be so meaningless is to be. just a simply one for I don't think that I don't think that provisions necessary in the bill for the reasons I stated. Per se Richmond you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair representative brown. Would you consider possibly do a little more work to address some of these issues on this bill might be a good idea. I'd be happy to do that I want a good bill I'm one of a bill that's constitutional and one that will help address you know the any future kinds of disturbances that might arise and and do it legally. Red brown would you like to pull your bill down and give a more work we have another week or so or two do you have yes please I'd like to pull my bill down in amended embers representative brown has requested to pull her bill down is there any objection by the committee. Seeing no objection represent brown will allow you to do that will keep it on the calendar please let us notified me when you've got it mended ready to come back thank you very much man thank you members the next bill is house bill fifteen eighteen representative Penzo. You're recognized to present your bill. Thank you chair. House Bill fifteen eighteen amend the Arkansas durable power of attorney act to make it consistent with uniform durable power of attorney. Uniform durable power of attorney act. This is in addition to the enhanced provisions to allow for an agent to create a trust. the agent will still be required to comply with code twenty eight sixty eight one one four which requires agent to act in accordance with principles reasonable expectations to extent known. Trust co provisions are being amended to be consistent with the power of attorney provisions. If there's any questions about the bill I have. Someone here that can speak to the committee members do we have any questions. Seeing no questions we do have a. Call your more to speak for the bill Mister Moore there's no questions I don't know thank you we have no questions you're recognized to close for your bill Mister representative Penzo clothes from a building per share a good vote. Members represented Penzo as close for his bill what are the wishes of the committee. Members we have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion of the motion. All in favor of the motion please say aye any post so I know. Motion carries congratulations you've passed your bill thank you Committee. Members House Bill fifteen forty two is being pulled down today so we'll skip over house bill fifteen forty two. Representative Penzo had to House Bill fifteen fifty four and he is passed over that for today workings more on that the next bill we have up is house bill sixteen eighteen representative Richardson. There is an amendment on that which we will pass out House Bill sixteen eighteen. I got one thank you. All right members I believe everyone has a copy of the amendment represent. Sixteen eighteen we're looking at the amendment to house bill sixteen eighteen. Members I believe everyone has a copy of the amendment representative Richardson you're recognized to present your amendment thank you madam chair colleagues the amendment you have before you eight House Bill sixteen eighteen the changes occur on the second page of you look down number five on the second page where we've we've pulled some things out of what's continue or what would be considered of non bail or net non cash bill items that's A. B. C. and D. under five and that was the the big amendment to this one. Members are there any questions on the amendment. Representative Richardson you're recognized for a motion close my amendment and moved to pass what a doctor dot the amendment numbers we have a motion to adopt the amendment any discussion all in favor please say aye any opposed the amendment has been adopted you're now recognized to present your bill as amended thank you of. Colleague's house bill sixteen eighteen is is not like what we've heard before we hear a lot of bills that come before us in this is small bill does a little thing it does little things this is a this is a major shift change in what we know in today's judicial system I was happy to hear of representative Smith in his bill when he talked he identified of. So many things in his bill that we're going to address here and it was based from the Arkansas constitution which is the right to be free from excessive bail cruel and unusual punishment and on reasonable detention this found in Arkansas constitution and that's what we want to address and bill and H. B. sixteen A. two. House Bill sixteen eighteen creates a presumption against cash bail for misdemeanors and restores the presumption of innocence for Arkansas for Kansans who have not been convicted of a crime. By creating a legal presumption against caste bill for misdemeanors H. B. sixteen eighteen will ensure that far fewer people are forced to spend needless time incarcerated because they cannot afford to pay the bill bail. The client consequences of cash bill or immense for Kansans not only is it unconstitutional it's a key driver of mass incarceration. For those who cannot afford to pay it cash bill is the most destructive force in the criminal legal system ruining lives destabilizing families and we can our communities. Cash bill violates this the spirit of the due process and equal protection clauses of both US and ark Arkansas constituents. In Arkansas and across the US misdemeanors encompass the vast majority of total rest. People of color are disproportionately charged with misdemeanor in all offenses every night our Kansans Corps disproportionately from low income communities of color who have not been convicted Scott I'm sorry who have not been convicted of anything go to sleep in sales because they cannot afford to pay the cash bill for the misdemeanor offense that they've been charged with. Right now in Arkansas. Black people constitute sixty percent of state residents but account for thirty seven percent of all people in jail. Since nineteen ninety the incarceration rate in Arkansas jails has increased a hundred and twenty percent. H. B. sixteen eighteen is consistent with Arkansas's existing rules of criminal procedure. Arkansas is existing rules of criminal procedure state the cash bill may be utilized as a last resort only. H. B. sixteen eighteen is consistent with Arkansas criminal rule authorizing cite and release for all misdemeanors which allows law enforcement to issue a citation to a person with their promise to appear to court a later date this practice limits individual exposure to car sales settings. Thus enhancing procedural fairness reducing the burden of Arkansas courts and jails in minimising disruption to the lives of our Kansans. Cash bill is not necessary to compel people to attend court. The Bill project team in Northwest Arkansas. Provides free bill assistant at three hundred and ninety two low income local residents since August of twenty nineteen they also provide court reminders transportation assistant involuntary referrals to social services. The bill projects clients have appeared in over ninety percent of their court dates even though they have no financial obligation to that that organization. And lastly. H. B. sixteen reduces the incarceration rate and saves our Kansans tax dollars that can be used instead of critical social services like health care and education. According to the washing County sheriff sheriff it cost sixty five dollars per day to detain someone pre trial Arkansas ranks thirteenth nationally in jail spending and nearly two out of every five dollars spent on correction goes to local jail operations. Our cans our Kansans total jail population has increased six hundred and thirty eight percent from since nineteen seventy a majority of that growth is found in the pretrial population and as a result jails throughout the state or chronically overcrowded people who have been jailed because they are poor or even reliant on homeless shelters in public assistance after they've been released. Arkansas is battling an opioid epidemic even short periods of pre trial did detention significantly increase the probability that someone with substance use issues will experience a fatal overdose upon release. And with that I will take questions. Members are there any questions. Representative Crawford you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair. J. I guess you spoke to our share of Kobe and you guys are now on the same page is that yes yes your front end is in support of the bill okay thank you. Represent a slight you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair. US representative Richardson on page two of no soon section three for a misdemeanor offense of little presumption may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence duly documented recorded by law enforcement such as our history own and that's in a CSE. The the one officer is stopped them and they are saying that they've not you know fail to appear several times in a two year period is that correct that's correct. Okay thank you madam chair. Members any other questions. We have no other questions we have about nine people who have signed up to speak for against the bill the chair will entertain a motion. Representative Crawford you're recognized turn your Mike on selection there we go. Yes madam chair skews me I would like to make a motion for each person to speak two minutes that did you senator I'm starting to members we have a motion on the floor to to limit of comments to two minutes a person in a discussion. All in favor please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it. The first person to speak. Against the bill will be judge clay Ford. Judge Ford if you'll come forward. Thank you madam chair that the middle but any comedian thank you thank you madam chair and committee for having my name is clay Ford I'm district judge and thirty second judicial district of Arkansas that is all of selling county and L. the city of Alexander and Pulaski County and may I add maths you cover the member if you don't mind. I was trying to follow up Page two and I do. What else from. Okay. Ma'am I'm I'm I'm here on behalf of the Arkansas district judges association the Arkansas district judges association opposes this bill of while decreasing legal debt obligations is a worthy goal a good goal of this bill takes away a primary tool that allows me to ensure people show up to court of. By removing bail for all misdemeanor just not just petty misdemeanors and traffic crimes it's all misdemeanors someone on a speeding ticket someone or shoplifting they shouldn't go to jail they should be cited and released to come to court but misdemeanors include. Negligent homicide battery third assault first indecent exposure domestic battering danger in the welfare of a minor those are misdemeanors this bill would require them to be cited and released. I would just like to go over the bill and I'll over the amendment as well and in the Legislative findings it says the General Assembly also finds the imposition of a requirement that a person is present in this paper his or her freedom for adjudication is intention but this provision has the potential for abuse. There are already rules in place Arkansas rules of civil procedure or criminal procedure I apologize eight point one through eight point seven and nine one point one through nine point five talk about pre trial release factors you go into their employment where they live do they have ties to the community the nature of the charge of the likeliness of conviction by looking at aggravating or mitigating factors that's in the rules already. I'm sorry judge your time is. I apologize thank you for that and again I I represent the Arkansas district judges association or I'm a judge here on behalf of the social action we object to this bill. Thank you judge we have Frank Shaw who has signed up to speak for the bill Mr Shaw. That'll be fine if you consider. Just press the button and state your name and your time will begin. Yes my name is Frank from with the Arkansas state conference in double ACP we want to of one record support of this bill we have gone through a legislative process in the state level and at the national level and this is a movement throughout the country to kind of take a look at the cost of this hands on pool people. As our main object our main objective is to kind of look at alleviating some of the calls would average because being the. Representive instead by fifteen hundred dollars per bill some people cannot afford the bill so I've main focus was to look at alleviating some of that on first time Mr Miller type situations Yes that's why folks the. At this point we do support this bill. Thank you Mr Shaw. Next we have Scott Bradley to speak against the bill Bradley. Thank you madam chair Scott Bradley in the Director of the share socialization and we're in opposition this bill the shares have no interest in being responsible for making the sure these people show back to court and that's what the bail bondsmen do for us they can make sure that they appear in court. and we're not the bail bonding business our plates full and we have a hard time tracking these people down when they're out on bond you have bondsmen that are responsible for and make sure they peer back in court. and I think there's some other people here will testify that what the percentages are that come back to court I mean they're they're showing up so we're here and in opposition of the bill. Thank you Mr Bradley. Next we have Madeline Porter to speak for the bill. Miss Porter feel come forward. Okay okay. Thank you good afternoon chair Dalby and and members of the committee my name is Madeline ports I I'm an operations manager with the bill project in a server Northwest Arkansas state in Washington and Benton counties. I'm here today to discuss the bill projects support for house bill sixteen eighteen which does create a legal presumption against cash bail for misdemeanors in Arkansas although the bill project opposes charge based distinctions in general because an individualized assessment is necessary for each bill the termination are we recognize that this legislation is consistent with our ongoing efforts in Arkansas to assist people who can't afford cash bill and to simultaneously achieve systemic risk policy results. I want to touch on a couple things that haven't been mentioned yet because representative Richardson went through a lot which we appreciate we know that the ideal that money should not dictate freedom regardless of charge is supported by the constitution's and laws that guide our state and our nation. In Arkansas rules of criminal procedure provide the cash bill is intended to be used as a last resort only and yet our jails are full of people I incarcerated pre trial that's before being convicted of any crime are US Supreme Court is hold the in our society pretrial liberty is the norm and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception and H. B. sixteen holds us accountable on this. I want to talk just briefly about the statistics that representative Richardson mentioned in terms of the spending the amount of money that we pour into jails this can't be something that we as Arkansans take pride and when we know that we are suffering on so many other levels in our communities so I would appreciate the support of this bill thank you thank you next we have Andre Cummings our. I Committee and the chairperson I am Andre Cummings I am a professor of law at the university of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law and I appear today to speak on behalf of. House Bill sixteen eighteen and those of you that went to law school now that it it's it's a miracle for a law professor to speak from the two minutes so. I'm here we go House Bill sixteen eighteen is an important first step in my view in the State of Arkansas refusing to jail citizens that cannot afford to post bail I want to make three brief an important points in support of the bill first I urge everyone to remember that those individuals accused of Mr Greek misdemeanor crimes who are imprisoned because they cannot post bail are deemed innocent until proven guilty by extension we are simply incarcerating people that have not been convicted of a crime which I think goes against the morals and values of our state. Second incarceration rates in Arkansas disproportionately impact African American and Latin acts are Kansans. As you know black our Kansans make up sixteen percent of our state and yet are imprisoned at rates of over forty percent of our prison population by extension that means that disproportionately those can does not convicted of misdemeanor crimes are sitting in jail simply because they cannot afford to post bail. Thirdly. Cash bail for misdemeanors to ensure that of an individual show up for the court date is no longer necessary my research indicates that individuals that are released without posting bail show up to court at the same rates as those that do post bail and the bill project as indicated by representative Richardson earlier reports that over ninety percent of their clients show up when they have not been when they have not been forced to pay a bill so that we no longer need to compel individuals to show up to court through bail so for those three reasons because it impacts minority our Kansans disproportionately and because we don't wanna lock up poor individuals I really urge you to pass house bill sixteen eighteen thank you thank you Mr Cummins. Next we have Serra more. Okay Mr Cummings professor Cummings if you could come back real quick representing flowers this question if are you willing to take a question I am happy to take a question that kind of turns the table on law professor so. Thank you madam there too hard the just real quick professor Cummings can you give us site the source for your statistics particularly where you indicated that there is no difference between those who pay bail and those who don't most of the acts coming from the beer institute and the very institute has done research both in the state and nationally on that I can be even more specific to you it up. At a later date but I but I am referring smoke specifically to very institute statistics and research quick follow up madam chair you're recognized for a quick follow up can you tell us give us who the Vera institute is and I'm asking because I think it'll be important for those of us who are trying to make a determination it because I think that's really really important that statistic that you gave thank you Sir sure the very institute is a national organization that is dedicated to ensuring fairness and equality. Throughout the United States in connection with incarceration rates and in connection with Trying to ensure that the disproportionate imprisonment of minority citizens ands I in the United States and so their national organization that does state and national specific research on of these very relevant issues. Thank you professor Cummings next we have Serra more more. Hello committee and chair my name is Sarah Moore I'm the co founder of the Arkansas justice reform coalition out of northwest Arkansas I'm a wife and a mother and because I'm a mother I feel like this is an important issue for families across our state almost seventy percent of households holds report having difficulty meeting their basic needs such as food and housing when a family member is incarcerated in March of last year when the pandemic and happened I joined hands with Saint James and historic Baptist church in their food pantry where we have seen since a year ago six hundred and fifty percent and need for food increase in our community many of these folks you know impacted died due to the pandemic and to incarceration according to an MIT living wage calculator an individual must earn fourteen dollars and eighteen cents per hour in Arkansas to provide for a family yet the state minimum wage is only about eight fifty other peer trust said one in five people that are returning from jail or prison earn less than seventy six hundred dollars a year following their release our families are in crisis and poverty across the state an especially in my county Washington County so why do I care about this because I'd never been incarcerated because many of us are touched by until the rebels effects from loved ones and the take away from our economy when we have to find ways to pay for their bell and many folks are incarcerated there lies are deteriorating the families are are being ripped apart DHS's at taking on an historic lows of of children into foster care that are hard to to House we have children that are sleeping under desk and and DHS offices I think that this is a family crisis issue that we need to really think about and the fact that I know that our state really values the family and this is something that impacts us all whenever families and are not able to keep their themselves together whenever and someone is incarcerated thank you. Thank you miss more. Next we have Quentin Smith. Quentin Smith. Can you hear me OK. Are you guys doing today I do apologize for my ticket My name is Quentin Smith I am a client of the Arkansas bill project last year I was arrested and February for a misdemeanor After I was a during my incarceration I was I told that I had to spend a hundred and eighty day ease within in Washington County because of the misdemeanors if I was to spend that one hundred eighty days in county I would I would have lost my job My place living and are. Pretty much a. It would it would it took me down the road that I probably wouldn't know. Bounced back from but because it Arkansas bill project I was able to get bonded out and handle my matters in a reasonable way I was able to pretty much it my fines paid And pretty much get everything handled to the court system. And that's all I have to beg. Thank you Mr Smith for being here today next we have Laura Sutherland Sutherland. Hello committee my name is Laura Sutherland. I was invited to you share my story of how cash balance affected me with you guys today. Back in two thousand seventeen my oldest daughter was less than a year old I was her sole custodian I got arrested on a misdemeanor and while I was in jail trying to come up with the cash bail. She was put an emergency foster care and it took me several years to earn because the back of her it was just because I was the sole custodian of my daughter and there was nobody to care for her so I lost several years of. Time with my child due to the fact that on a misdemeanor had to pay cash bill so I just wanted to. Show you guys that like ms Moore said this is a family issue this affects much more deeply than just financially And it very much punishes. The poor citizens more than it does People that came before the bill. Thank you thank you ms Sutherland. Next we have one of the tool day. Okay. Hello thank you for hearing me this evening I just of. Everything that's been said in support of the bill has been really up one point one thing that I want to make sure that we understand is that this bill as it's written is consistent with the due process clause and the equal protection clause of both the federal and the state constitutions is also consistent with the a federal bill Reform Act of nineteen seventy eight. And the gentleman that spoke against the bill their main concern as I understood it were up sky nineteen there is no epidemic of a UPS con dean that I'm aware of here in Arkansas and if you are you using. A bill is not going to stop someone who really wants to a skyline what we're trying to do with this bill here is we're trying to remove the revenue generation of for the state as it deals with justice if someone commits a crime let them of be in the city into proving guilty. Thank you. Thank you for coming today we have a couple of people signed up for informational purposes I don't know if they have anything that they wish to add that we have Ashley Bowen from office of the prosecutor coordinator's office. And I remind you you're under the same two minute time as everyone else. Thank you madam chair members of the committee my name's Ashley bell and I'm an attorney with the prosecutor coordinator's office I am speaking today on behalf of the Arkansas prosecuting attorneys association. Our association has some concerns with this bill and you've heard several people testified believe you heard judge for earlier site some of those concerns. The issue is that this not only deals with failure to appear this. It's first of all a two year lookback window the difference since someone had been incarcerated for that two years but had fifteen or twenty prior FTAs they're not going to fit into this exception so that person would have to be released it takes the decision entirely on the judge's hands the other concern that the prosecutors have with this bill is the rebuttable presumption that creates so under the I have not seen the amendment so I don't know if it actually takes care of this okay. And also be grateful that only a few minutes. So as I get does create some exceptions for certain offenses but the problem is what about A. D. W. I. offense I know the previous language discussed a threat to a specific person or persons does that included E. W. Y. or harassment it's creating a situation where the law enforcement officer last to arrest someone is making that determination not a judge. Nine point two of the Arkansas rules of criminal procedure actually handles this and it gives a list of factors that a judge has to consider in releasing a defendant of our position is that this rule is sufficient and it takes care of those issues this proposed bill will create a situation that forces law enforcement to make that determination not a judge. So those are concerns I'm happy to entertain any questions that anyone may have. Represent guess what you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair thank you Mr bow and I think what would be helpful for the committee. if you have in front of you I'm not sure but rule nine point two of the Arkansas rules of criminal procedure that sets out certain factors that a judge already considers when they're considering of whether or not there's a risk of willful non appearance those factors are already set out and would you mind a cover for the committee what some of those factors are the judges already take into consideration when they make these decisions absolutely. Under nine point zero and this is under C. the judge considers the length and character of the defendant's residents in the community. Employment status history and financial condition family ties and relationships reputation character and mental condition past history of response to legal process prior criminal record identity of responsible members of the community who can vouch for the defendant's reliability. Nature of the current charge the apparent probability of conviction and the likely sense insofar as these factors are relevant to the risk of not appearance and any other factors indicating the defendant's roots in the community. Represent Clark you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair I'm from earlier witnesses a couple of things that have really Struck with me is the of statistics that we heard about there is no. Difference between those who are signed cash bill verses those who aren't and there you know propensity to to come to court that struck me and then I'm not sure what the rule was or or what what the reference was but specifically but it it referred to a cash bill being a last resort can you speak to those two points please yes I can't so my first understanding is that this bill would create a preference against cash bill it but it discusses that terms of a felony of the concerns that the prosecutors association has is that the misdemeanor section of the bill doesn't address cash bill at all it is just a general presumption that anyone who is arrested on any kind of misdemeanor is going to be released unless the law enforcement officer can meet this clear and convincing evidence standard that's put forth in the bill so and I'm I maybe answering party your question can you tell me your second question and if if I'm hitting on any of it at all well so. It sounds like you're saying that that that last resort language relates to felonies and not misdemeanors is that what you're saying. Know what so what I mean is that the portion of the bill that are the version of the bill that I've read which I've read the previous amendment on March eighteenth but not this current one it addresses cash bill in terms of a felonies right in the beginning of the bill and then it goes on to address this rebuttable presumption that would take place in any misdemeanor case it doesn't it takes the cash bill the termination Charlie out of the judge's purview because unless a law enforcement officer can make that determination when someone is arrested unless they can find it there is clear and convincing evidence that one of these kind of exceptions applies then that personal be released anyway so there's really no cash bill there's no bill at all being sad because unless someone can overcome this clear and convincing standard that person's gonna be released on a misdemeanor now my understanding on the felony is that it does create this presumption against cash bail but on misdemeanors it's changing the standard entirely. And madam chair shouldn't ask for clarification because I as a couple for a couple of points so if I could clarify for her and then I have a quick follow up and I could put those two together. Manager at. Repeat I'm sorry. Only for clarification she can understand what I was saying I don't want that the county gets because I have. Though the I would have asked about the That the Vera institute data that that we heard And how the the cat the research demonstrated that there was no difference in terms of the return to court between those who were assigned cash bail and not and then representative Gazaway spoke to existing considerations by judges. But we're talking about. if we're talking about residence and family ties and. Probability I don't know how you can determine. What the probability is for a misdemeanor with you. And there's not been any information or evidence presented. you know what what about a foster child and someone who doesn't have family so they would be more likely to go back to jail it just seems like. In in the existing considerations it's stacked against someone who doesn't have any money and doesn't have any family. And then when you look at the data that suggests that whether by a bill as assigned or not. People still return to court I'm just wondering what the problem is. And I can't speak to the statistic in terms of the failures to appear what I can speak to you is that the process here which would change everything in terms of how the misdemeanors is handled in unless a if someone is arrested on a misdemeanor and as island misdemeanor. Let's say it's a battery third or domestic battery third this bill would put the law enforcement officer who's making that rest decision in charge of deciding if there is clear and convincing evidence of whether you know there is a. Identifiable threat. This is. Okay and and he's just shown me there is a section creating so a battery third and there's certain offenses under here that are going to be it looks like exempted Our concern would be. Something that maybe not be as clear so D. W. I might be covered what about you've got a. Assault you've got battery and domestic sorry I'm reading this for the first time sexual assault harassment there's certain types of offenses that are going to be violent in nature but that may not include a specific threat to a specific person it may be more of a general threat or a general harassment and so I think that is the concern is not so much the ad that there is a it certainly don't want to keep someone on a petty offense that's nonviolent and that has no history but if it's a violent offense or if it's an offense where someone can't be returned you know into that home situation because there may be a threat that's the concern and And then additionally the language I don't know if the amendment is addresses this at all but the look back period of two years or failure to appear may not in capsule eight someone who hasn't been here and an an officer may not have that information when they make the arrest a lot of times if they run someone they will have that and to make the snap decision and so so that's a concern I don't think that there's any I think that the purpose of the bill is absolutely a good purpose we don't want to arrest people and keep them detained who don't need to be arrested and state attain especially on a minor offense a petty offense but some petty offenses are more serious than others even if they are misdemeanors and to the concern is that you're putting taking the decision of the judges hands and putting it into a law enforcement and they have to decide whether or not it meets this rebuttable presumption. Representative guess where you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair and I just have to bring try to keep them as brief as possible the two questions one I think you've already kind of already addressed which is the rebuttable presumption others a rebuttable presumption that the arresting officer issues a citation and then I see later in the bill that that rebuttable presumption may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence really documented recorded by law enforcement officer so is it your interpretation of that the law enforcement officer is going to kind of have to go through that analysis of whether or not there is clear and convincing evidence of of the presumption being overcome while they're out on a traffic stop absolutely that that's my interpretation this these people are being potentially sided out or arrested I have not seen a judge yet so it would put that onus on the law enforcement officer to make that decision I into interpret those circumstances okay and then second thing and by the way I just wanna say I mean I agree with the intent of representative Richardson's bill absolutely but I do think there are some issues that being one secondly in the list that you see on the amendment where we talk about battery third sexual assault or domestic battery third DWI. Says the judicial officer shall set cash or money bail only after he or she determines that no other conditions will reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant in court no other conditions will reasonably ensure the appearance of the defendant core. It's my understanding and and I'd like you to to address this that's not currently the standard that the court looks at when there address making bail determinations appearance at trial is the primary is always my understanding of whether or not you can secure the their appearance at trial. Is the primary purpose of bond is not the only purpose of bond can you address that yes yes and I am just seeing the amendment for the first time but the concern is that this would create a conflict between the role at nine point two as it exists which is a criminal role of procedure and then this new law and and how it's applied so I think it does create a potential conflict in in the standard and and that's currently not the standard being used and until the rules of criminal procedure or if they're not amended and that center still going to exist even if this is an act. Thank you Miss phone for appearing today thank you for your time and the last person we have signed up for informational purposes is Randy Murray. Remember in the executive director for the state bail bonding board I've discussed some informational numbers to give you all and the full amount now this given to the. these numbers are based on. Information that we obtain some of these are from two thousand eighteen by reaching out and calling different states to find out their failure to appear rights within their states and then comparing to Arkansas's. All star with Arkansas in the two thousand eighteen there was five thousand nine hundred thirty six bonds wrote with a hundred forty eight forfeitures that's a two point six percent failure to appear right two thousand nineteen is going to be sought slightly less at two point five percent and then this year because of covid the failure to appear rate was down to one point zero. The US states that we that we query back in two thousand eighteen the average was fifteen percent failure to pay or appear right. And the reason why ours is so low is because of the bail bonding industry they are responsible once once they write the bill the bail is a contract between the court in the bail bond company so that means that if somebody fails to appear these bail bondsmen have to go out find these people and they can get back in court if not then they have to forfeit the full amount of the bond are up to the full amount of the bond. I'm up for any questions. Seeing no questions thank you Mr Murray for coming today members that's all the individuals we have signed up to speak for against representative Richardson all recognize you to close for your bill. Thank you madam chair of. So like I I started off with this bill this is this is important to. To the people here in our state and we have an opportunity to begin to fix some of the broken pieces about judicial system and I think this is one step towards that of you know we heard and I apologize I don't remember name young lady from prosecuting attorney's office who choose who spoke that. We already have a current standard but I would push back from the standpoint of our current standard is it necessarily working so we've got to figure out a better way to take care of our our our people in our communities in and give them a chance of to not just get bogged down with with bail fees and and be incarcerated for long periods of time I just I just think this is an important bill and I move for do pass do pass as amended as amended thank you members we have a motion to. Representative because you have a question discussion on the motion a we have a we have a motion on the floor to pass as amended representative Collins you're recognized for discussion. Thank you madam chair and and I appreciate representive riches and bring this bill and I support it wholeheartedly you know I think it's kind of interesting and telling that both the district courts and the the prosecutors represent representatives talked about the severity of the misdemeanors were talking about but actually the only purpose of of bail is to secure appearance at trial or hearings it's not to punish it's not because it's of severe crime we want to make sure that they're locked up so they don't do any other things it in between then and trial because they're not guilty at they have not been convicted they're just accused and so I think you know it's it's a little bit of a misleading point to say look at how severe some of these misdemeanors in fact are. Share Bradley speaking for the shares Preciado his perspective but he talked about how the counties can't afford to ensure the people show up I understand that but that's a funding problem as a bigger problem that's you know counties need more resources jails anymore resources totally get that but we're putting this off on the individual the accused individual who again is innocent until proven guilty you know this is something bail the way we do it here in Arkansas is is a mass it's it's absolutely unfair it ruins families in many cases if they can't afford to post bail to get locked up makes us less safe because people who spend even a little bit of time in jail tend to have more issues you know once you go into jail that is an experience it can be difficult to recover from you may lose your job you may you know have family problems that result from that experience if you cannot make bail and I it's simply unfair to have two systems of justice one for those who can afford one for those who can't I appreciate representative Richardson again This Angus is a really important bill and I hope that we all can can support thanks. Represent guess what you're recognized thank you madam chair and also want to say to representative Richardson I think this is a really important bill it's something that I think we need to address to the extent that we can keep people out of jail on petty criminal offenses we need to do that it costs too much to incarcerate on even as representative Collins noted the impact that it has on families in on individuals to keep a person locked up especially for things that we recognize as or more minor offenses is an approach that we definitely need to be moving away from but I will say that I do think that there are some issues that you know I would like to see work through with the prosecuting attorney's association and the sheriffs association if I recall correctly I think miss bow and said this is well I know what the rule of criminal procedure says about only only cash bond if you can't see that's the only way to secure appearance of trial but my recollection and maybe some case law on it is that the primary purpose of bond or bail is to secure appearance at trial but there are also other factors that you take into consideration if that person is a threat to members of the public if you have somebody on the W. three that's a you know evidence to clear alcohol problem they close pose a real present threat to members of the public harassment issue domestic issue where someone could get hurt that person were out of jail there other considerations the judges taking into account other than just. Not appearance or the risk of not appearance at trial while that is the primary consideration that judges are supposed to take into account. I think rule nine point to the rules of criminal procedure already covers this pretty well but I'm not saying that there's not room for improvement but I think this issue about the rebuttable presumption that miss Bowen spoke to with the idea that you're going to have police officers on the side of the road trying to make a decision whether or not there's enough evidence to overcome this rebuttable presumption against bail is not a position that we want to put our law enforcement officers in and then I think we do need to seriously think about the nature of some of these offenses that we're talking about you may qualify may not qualify for cash bill you know even under this bill with the exception that's written in. The only if it's determined that no other conditions will reasonably ensure appearance at trial again we're talking about things like. Sexual assault in the fourth degree DWI DWI third offense for instance is a misdemeanor I again did you know there are there other that negligent homicide is not on that list but negligent homicide is a class A. misdemeanor so I think there are very serious misdemeanors number one that may not be on that list that should be on that list and the way that we think about these issues so I applaud what you're doing I appreciate what you're doing I think it needs a little bit more work I can't vote for the bill today if the review amendments to it I probably could thank you. Represent fires you're recognized. I I don't know that I have felt more compelled to speak on a bill in in discussions than this one. I I don't know if anyone else has seen the documentary thirteenth and I believe one of my colleagues on working with on another bill saw it and was moved I think like I was because a lot of people don't realize how the policies that we sat impact people's lives and have nothing to do with public safety and I'm struck by what I just heard even I'm I'm glad and almost excited that representative Gazaway is willing to work on amendments but I think that the bill is important enough and serious enough. And representative Richardson is credible enough for us to move this bill forward and be able to still amended because it is so important. When I think it was like thirty or forty years ago our incarceration rate in this country was exponentially lower and it's only be by creating new crimes and penalties have we seen such an incredible explosion of people in jail and in prison there have been examples of people who have died in committed suicide because their lives have been wrecked. By what we might think is a small amount of money but it's everything two people. On another bill I just pointed out we. In this country most people can't pull together four hundred dollars for a life emergency. And people do make mistakes but we live in a country. Where we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. And for misdemeanors it seems to me a no brainer. To be able to change the laws and read and relieve our county jails. And relieve the lives of people who are wrecked by making a small misdemeanor we just heard from someone. Who got assistance that's not available everywhere in the states certainly not available in my part of the state. Who had he not gotten that assistance for just a few hundred dollars his entire life would be completely ruined. Can you imagine making a mistake and losing your job losing your home or your apartment. Can you imagine losing your child for years. After hearing that and hearing that there's data that suggests that there's no difference and also hearing that we have colleagues who are willing to work on this bill to make it better. I just don't see any other way except to vote for this bill and I'll be voting. Yes and hope that other colleagues will do the same thank you. Represent Crawford you're recognized thank you madam chair so with what representative flowers said are you willing to amend the bill if we approve it today or should we keep on with what we've done all day and deny every bill that comes up here. Which is a kind of eighty eight thank. I don't can I am. But I think we're really pass the question and answer really in the the argument are not the argument the discussion phase of a you have clothes for your bill there's a motion to do pass as amended on the port is there any further discussion on the motion. Seeing no further discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion to do pass please say aye. All opposed say no. The nose have at the bill has failed. Call the roll. Representative Ferguson. Your representative Ferguson votes yes representative flowers representative flowers votes yes representative Nicks. Representative next votes yes representative Richmond. Representative Richmond votes No representative Cavenaugh. Representative Cavenaugh votes No representative Gazaway. The representative Gazaway votes No representative Barry representative berry representative Crawford. Representative Crawford votes No representative Scott. Representative Scott both CS representative slate. Representive sleep votes no representive Clowney. Representive Clowney votes yes representative Cooper. Representative Cooper votes No representative Richardson. Representative Richardson votes yes representative Collins. Resented Collins votes yes representative McCullough. Representative McCollum votes yes representative Hudson representive Hudson votes yes representive Underwood. Representive Underwood votes No representative Smith. Representive Smith votes no. The bill has failed. Members the next bill that will be taking up is going to be house bill sixteen twenty five we're going to take about four to five minute little break so people construction legs but I want to announce for anybody who is here waiting on some bills house bill sixteen ninety three will not run today nor will Senate bill three thirty four will not run and Senate bill three thirty five will not run so if you're waiting on those bills. just know that those bills will not be heard today the next bill will take up after a little five minute break is going to be house bill sixteen twenty five members there's an amendment that's being passed out. Let's get seated. Represent flowers let's get seated. All right let's. Perfect. Not I'm not on a. Brent. All right members. Members let's. Representative Scott I need you to. Ready to get going. Right. Sir I need you to. All right members let's turn to House Bill sixteen twenty five. House Bill sixteen twenty five representative hawk you're recognized. Members this bill has an amendment on it it should be at your desk. Representative hockey reference recognized to present your amendment. Thank you chairman and committee Of the presenting the amendment for sixteen twenty five it's basically adds the definition of the easement at the beginning of the bill the very first section is added to mean a service easement for pedestrian bicycle and recreational use this amendment came at six a suggestion from representative Collins. I'll take any questions you might have on the amendment members you for the explanation of the amendment. Do I have a motion. We have a motion to adopt the amendment any discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed motion carries your mammoth has been adopted you're recognized to present your bill as amended. Thank you thank you committee of this bill came from the city of Bentonville asking for in addition to what is already on the books covering public or private elementary secondary schools day care facilities public parks youth centers and churches as it relates to how closely a sex offender level three or four can live and the razorback greenway trail as about a thirty seven mile trail and it extends over some private property or easements and this is asking for that restriction to apply to not only of city owned land but also privately owned land for which an easement has been granted to the state a county city or town that is used as part of the public park system of the state county city or town and it is not a violation of this section of the sex offender resides on the property he or she owns prior to the effective date of this act that is the main part of the this bill in addition adding to this This section of the same language. On the second page under section C. is the same language that it also applies to section B. and a of the of this bill and then down below the public park includes a portion of any private Lee owned land over which an easement has been granted and again a representative Collins made a good suggestion to define easements as As amended to mean a surface easement for pedestrian bicycle and recreational use so that would not be confused with any other Type of easements. And with that I'll take any questions. Member or their members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we have no one who has signed up to speak. I'm sorry representative Crawford I'm sorry these. Your I will make a motion. At the right time okay thank you. And I'll just say except of the executive director of Association of Chiefs of Police Gary sipes is here if we had any questions or any issues that he might address they are in favor of the bill. And no one who is signed up to speak for against the bill we have no questions from the committee representing hawk you're recognized to close for your bill. I am close for the bill and ask for a favorable vote. Representative Crawford you're recognized. Madam chair I make a motion for do pass as amended members we have a motion to do pass as amended on the floor is there any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no motion carries congradulations you have passed your bill. Members the next bill we will be turning to his house bill sixteen ninety seven. House Bill sixteen ninety seven representative Hudson. You're recognized to present your bill. Thank you madam chair and thank you colleagues I'm here today to present to us slight revision to our existing divorce code to include no fault divorce I spoke to a few of you over the past couple of weeks a lot of people thought that Arkansas already had no fault divorce we do not and this would not affect any of the existing grounds for divorce that are already in the code those are all enumerated in the code include impotence felony or this crime conviction eventual drunkenness cruel and barbarous treatment generally dignity's adultery living separate and apart for eighteen continuous months or being separate apart for three years due to incurable insanity all of those would remain no fault would be added as an option to those what it means is that rather than having to plead a specific grounds against the spouse you would simply plead it in essence are reconcilable differences I have been talking to my friends in the family bar and one reason that they think this would be useful is because in many cases especially where the divorcing couple has children one spouse is hesitant to have to plead something specific even general indignities against the other for fear that their children might read it some day and be concerned about things that were setting pleadings about one parent or the other I'm so again This doesn't add change the ability to plead any other grounds this is just another option for those who might want to use it the judicial council is in favor of this bill the Arkansas bars in favor of this this bill Angela Mann from the family law section of the Arkansas Bar is here to answer any questions and I'll of course try to do the same as well. Members do we have any questions. Seeing no questions. We have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill representative Hudson you're recognized to close for your bill I'm I'm close my bill I would appreciate a do pass and I would move for do pass. Members we have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no motion carries congratulations you have passed your bill. Representative Lundstrum. Represent Lundstrum indicated to me earlier that she had read war and peace this afternoon thoroughly enjoyed. We have of a couple of minutes the first and the first bill we will be taking up will be house bill seventeen eighteen there is an amendment they're going to go ahead and pass out the amendments to all. Five of representative Lundstrum Bills. Members the first amendment and the first bill will be to house bill seventeen eighty. Thank you chairman Donnie The Amendment was just at a co sponsor. Thank you. Members of the amendment to house bill seventeen eighteen is to add representative Scott as a co sponsor. There any discussion on that do we have a motion. We have a motion to adopt the amendment any discussion all in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no motion carries you're now recognized to present your bill as amended. Thank you of this is simply updating trust line Arkansas it has felt flexibility and drafting a trust for a family state planning situation it does not have a financial impact it also includes language for limited powers of appointment it's pretty much cleaning it up and getting it done. Members are there any questions in regard to. This bill saying no questions we have no one who signed up to speak but like. The more. Mister Moore call your more. One individual who signed up are you good okay. With that we have no other individuals who signed up to speak for against the bill what are the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass as amended any discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed motion carries congratulations you've passed your bill thank you colleagues members let's turn to House Bill seventeen thirty nine there is an amendment to house bill seventeen thirty nine. Representive Lundstrum you're recognized to present your men thank you chairman Dalby this is to add co sponsors. Do I have a motion. We have a motion to adopt the amendment to add co sponsors all in favor say aye. Any opposed motion carries the amendment has been adopted you're now recognized to present your bill as amended thank you first of all I'd like to start by saying that sex trafficking is X. serious issue and I'd like to this next three bills addressing sex trafficking and I'd like to say thank you specifically to the FBI the Rogers police department spring at the event Bentonville police department and they specifically have a child exploitation task force and into the light which is a wonderful agency if you haven't looked it up please do they work with sex trafficking victims all over the state of Arkansas it's a phenomenal group and they work hand in glove with the law enforcement also like to thank the prosecutors association for the heart for their help on these bills sex trafficking has become extremely sophisticated far reaching vast an extremely lucrative with the internet it has become the wild wild west it is a business. It is not something small it is large and fast and it is in Arkansas we are a pass through state and we have become a state that is unfortunately it's very serious what we have going on the sex trafficking right now so these next few bills deals specifically with those Unfortunately we have a score card now for states with sex trafficking in Arkansas has received an F. this is done by the Polaris group the commission on domestic violence and sex by the commission on domestic and sexual violence Brooklyn law school university of Baltimore we have a fifty nine score so if you want to see this I'll be glad to share it with you as well this first bill seventeen thirty nine has to do with no contact order there's a specifically three parts to it so that a judge can add this when they're dealing with sex trafficking once somebody is sentenced in a judge has to deal with this basically you're releasing that sex trafficker somebody's not convicted yet but you've got their victims out there and those victims need to be protected so this actually says no terroristic threatening no trafficking of persons. And no false imprisonment with that I will take any questions. All members are there any questions. Seeing the questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill representative Lundstrum you're recognized close for your bill. Colleagues I would appreciate a good vote. Members represented Lundstrum his clothes for bill what are the wishes of the committee. Representative Ferguson has a motion to do pass as amended any discussion on that motion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no motion carries congradulations you have passed your bill thank you colleagues. This is the next bill is House Bill seventeen forty and there is a physical impact statement members of you want to take a look at that. And we have co sponsors German Dalby we have an amendment if you want to present your amendment. That is to add co sponsors members we have a motion to adopt the amendment all in favor say aye. Any opposed motion is adopted your there are recognized to present your bill is amended. Thank you chairman Dalby. This bill has to do with grooming again this is a large and fast business and it starts early sometimes as young as ten years old here in Arkansas that's how young it's been starting they Graham children as young as ten in the home using these. Even with apps now absolutely I could come and look like a calculator. So when a parent walks in they don't realize that their child is being groomed they simply think it's a calculator on their phone. So they expose this in order to be convicted of grooming it's a very high bar you have to expose a minor knowingly with intent for the future of sex trafficking so that's a pretty high bar again knowingly expose a minor with the intent of grooming. For the future of sex trafficking that'll take any questions. Represent Collins you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair I thank represent one term so I'm I'm looking at this traveling for purpose of an unlawful sex act with a minor section. So that's page three and that's line twenty two yes so do I understand correctly that no matter what the unlawful underlying unlawful sex act is to be a misdemeanor could be a Class D. felony the traveling for the purpose of the unlawful sex act is itself a Class B. felony and so we could actually be a much higher class felony then the predicate yes let me explain what's going on we have people that are traveling specifically to Arkansas with the intent of having sexual intercourse with fourteen fifteen sixteen seventeen year old boys and girls. And they have been arrested seventy eighty year old man that have come to Arkansas traveling specifically to have sex with children in this state. So this says if you want travel with the purpose of unlawful sex with a minor. So it has to have all for those in order to. A convicted so you've got to have committed got to travel to Arkansas with the person purpose of unlawful sex with a minor. So we set the bar pretty high. Are you needing a follow up represent Collins. You're recognized. He's digesting I think. Thank you madam chair so we were talking about a different bill earlier on that that said that it was essentially unconstitutional to treat people in the criminal code differently if they're in one state versus another state have you explore the constitutional issues regarding this provision within the bill. I I think if they come here and they are in the state of Arkansas we can address that issue once I step over here and and take a child. And have sex with that child they've come here with the intent and I've followed all of these. Then they they end up in court and they'll have to prove it in court. Represent flowers you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair just a quick question follow question to that Is it couldn't the tremor some missing something could or couldn't the traveling be still traveling within the state traveling from West Memphis to northwest Arkansas so that there's not a distinction between correct someone travelling from out of state versus someone traveling right and we don't define it okay thanks. Seeing no further questions we do have Jeff Rosenzweig to signed up to speak against the bill. Your presence like Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers so everyone's against sex trafficking however this bill catches a lot more people than the sex trafficker that represent Lundstrum what's the catch if you look at the definition of grooming on page of bottom of page two top of page three of this would include a college student who sent who would send of **** for lack of a better term to his kid brother to do some sort of informal well sex education or look what with what you have to look forward to it's going to it that it catches people who who have no of who you were not trying presumably not trying to criminalize but who would but who would fall under under the skin under the scope of it to expose a minor to sexual use was wasn't language in other words this you know you're you don't of the words of four letter words and center or to visual and or print medium depicting sexually explicit conduct. With the purpose to gain the trust of the minor well you know what what does that what does that mean and then sexually explicit says it includes our child **** but it doesn't is not restricted to child **** it's any sort of sexually explicit explicit kind of. And then two and it and then with a purpose to make it more likely that the minor can be in enticed her into induced into a future sex act with a person not even an illegal sex acts but any sex act whatever this is this bill needs to be sharpened and refined to get the people who we want to get without catching up a bunch of other people I will notice also also noticed that the in the findings clause the last two lines of the finding Clark talks about raising the age of consent apparently that that's going to be an issue in the the next bill which is seventeen forty two and I would suggest if you're going to raise the age of consent that they be done in a in a coordinated fashion so you don't end up with unintended gaps and contradictions that type thing. Representing Crawford you're recognized yes so. In your statement about grooming minors is it not a legal. Somewhere in our law that minor send pictures to minors isn't there something there. In our state laws means sixteen and all this stuff going on with minors or its it's it's ill illegal in in one sense a lot of times it may be a misdemeanor but it had again it so it's something that happens people send photographs of photographs and whatever to each other I mean this is this is the. Problem if you want to call it that with the I. phones and everything else like that it is so easy it is so easy to send things like that now in a way that it didn't used to be when you or I were you know of of that age of and the problem is as a result of that you're going to catch up in this by the way this is written a whole lot more people then the ones that I would assume that representative Lundstrum wants to catch which is the the middle age person or coming from another state to have sex with a fourteen year old well you know that's already illegal under under federal laws under a lease orders state law the whole thing about crossing state lines you know. In the. The problem of the problem here is the way it's written. The way it's written catches a lot of people whom I presume you don't want to catch and who who do not need to be criminally prosecuted and sentenced to see what is there The grooming is a B. felony twenty years. S. and and the way the the way that grooming as defined in the the research in the it needs to be follow up yes referred you're recognized for a follow up are there certain laws already in place for minors if they're convicted of something rather than charging them as an adult as this is stating for the twenty years are those laws already there are we were like gagging on and now here to protect our children now because what you're talking about this okay the the miners it's when the minor the the person a seventeen year old seventeen years old since something what about the person who is eighteen Hussein's who send something to a seventeen year old friend. He's grooming way this is written now I don't think that's what she intended but that's the that we've got to deal with the law the way the law is in we don't need to deal with the situation or the prosecutors say well I don't think I'd ever file something like that we've got a relying on what the law says and not rely on on on a prosecutor saying why would never charge something like that you don't know that and the problem in the further problem is is once you have a law that is so broad that is going to catch people who you don't want to catch and who for whom it may be under unconstitutional to catch under certain circumstances that knocks that could possibly knock out the whole law if you can't distinguish or doesn't properly distinguish between legal or illegal conduct our constitutional or unconstitutional kind of and we you want to you want to. illegal license that's a word the the people you're really getting really wanting to get without writing it so broadly you sweep up a bunch of other people into. Represent Gazaway you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair want to say Mr Rosenzweig first of all I agree with everything that you said I think you've made some excellent points with that being said the representative Lundstrum I completely understand what you're trying to do with the bill absolutely agree with the intent I do think it's important that we get the language right I do think that it could be sharp in a little bit but with respect to section number two when we talk about grooming and I tried to write a bill my first session to I think we have a sense statute on a sexual grooming of a minor already like that's its own standalone statute of I recall correctly if it's not I tried to write one and ran into a lot of the same traps that you have brought up today but one of the things in the definition that we see back rooms is. I've means to expose a minor to sexually explicit language. Then we say with the purpose to gain the trust of the minor. and then. Of. You know I think that it well that's bad I don't know that that's exactly what like you represent like Mr Resnick said that's exist they were gonna catch way too many people for things that we really didn't mean to criminalize here and so I have some concern about that I'm gonna get to a question section three it talks about grooming for the for future sex trafficking can you address that the idea of like trying to criminalize something that may or may not occur in the future. Mr Rosenzweig yes the best that's the problem with this is the problem with writing a so called grooming statute you're ill you nothing happened by definition nothing has happened released nothing is happening that involves actual sex. Matched that's the. That's the and so you end up with shall we say maybe some tasteless emails from a. An eighteen year old kid to a a sixteen year old girl. And referring to you know this is what I like to do or here's here's a picture of what I'd like to do tasteless certainly but do you really want to make that a twenty year felony. Follow up you're recognized for a follow up and in with regard to that my my concern is the idea that you're criminalizing something in the future that we say that makes it more likely that's that's such of a restaurant Turman standard I'm not sure that you can attach criminal penalties to something that just becomes more likely. And so I would have some concern that but the last thing is we just had a bill in here where we basically rejected extending or or bumping up the age of consent from sixteen in the last section five eighteen one of seven number we talk about there's may just mentioned in there is how does how does that affect the current age of consent can you give us your opinion on that. Well that well you have you have to a It in the first in the findings apparently there's a statement of of trying to raise the age of consent and by referring to a minor and by definition of investors know what the definition of some minors anyone under the age of eighteen but of the statute says on the on the traveling section says traveling for of to have of. The firm to have sex seven sex act doesn't even say it has to be an illegal sex acts well the question is have you have you commit a crime to try to travel to do something that's completely legal. Or not only. If you get back in the queue will come out committee represent flowers you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair earlier we were addressing the the riot. Legislation the proposed legislation that bill and I was concerned about a section that says didn't seem to seem to be outside of the scope of the concerning some of the things that I was trying to address because it was already statute and so it put it under the my concern was it put it under the banner of riot and so I felt uncomfortable with that I feel comfortable with this and I hear what you're saying about language but doesn't isn't the context but when I look at section two and it says. concerning the definitions in use in regard to human trafficking the human trafficking at the twenty thirteen so if you're talking about grooming and it seems Bryant is in that in the context though of human sex trafficking and so as grooming is sort of a necessary part to lure children and you know I've I think we've all seen these twenty twenty and forty eight hours where we see the peta files calling you know they don't realize they're in a sting. And what seems innocuous and innocent. Really isn't because they're on their way over there so it didn't happen yet but they're saying Hey don't you like to do this do you have some beer do you have some condoms I'm on my way well that's not illegal by itself but in the context of them. And we're watching them planning to be with someone they know is twelve they just don't know we're watching. Is in that context doesn't that take it out of the round of general and innocuous it's it's already a crime to set up a meeting with someone under a certain age to have sex is already a crime and you the sole to catch a predator business that you see all right on television and you were someone that took turns out he's talking to of other state policemen showed up right a place that's all that's already a that's already a crime and the purpose of the and generally speaking generally speaking there's I say paper trail generally there's an electronic trail that would show of what the intent was in there may be a defense law was just not role playing it was a fantasy life and then a jury a jury sort set out the problem here the problem here and get with respect to what representatives Lundstrum is wanting to catch and and that that's in that I think everyone agrees of and everyone has their own. you know mental picture of who they're wanting to catch the middle aged person who is you know who's traveling over to to have sex with some. You're a teen a teenager from. Some sort of but problem is the definition the way the definitions read catch a whole lot more than that in part of the problem is is that you can commit this offence when you're eighteen years old just a quick can I have a quick follow up madam chair one quick follow up so so I get that in and in I just wanna make sure that. If this is under the banner or in the context of sex trafficking. Then wouldn't it be different. Okay go against section two concerning the definitions used in regard to human sex trafficking so if what outside of that would seem like a minor offense we're in this under this banner. What could that could that contextualizing make a distinction between what outside of it would be brought up you're a representative flowers the problem is you're you're going up for instance on the grooming for future sex trafficking the title isn't necessarily dispositive the elements the elements are in Hey which you knowingly groom a minor that means to show them **** or talk dirty in their presence with a purpose. Two that makes it more likely not that anything ever happens to be induced into a future sex act with any part with a person a sex act ninety one in illegal sex acts that and yes they they put the banner trafficking but the judge the judge's going you're going to read the jury instructions and the jury instructions or just going to be what it is Hey the legislature can call it can call it sex trafficking they can call it a banana they can call it you know they can call it attempted treason I mean I can call it anything but it's the elements that are in control in the elements the elements do not have or are not restricted to what what everyone here would. I understand to be sex trafficking because of of the of the the breadth of the definitions. Representative Cavenaugh you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair over here. You keeper over you keep referring to middle aged man. You realize sex trafficking doesn't involve just middle aged people involves people of all ages I'm I'm I'm I'm more I am aware of that but when I'm I wish I was talking about this initially everyone person's mental image of of whom of who this bill is is is trying to and I understand that but that's a preconceived idea that you're self put out that it's mental eight it's middle aged people it's not and that's a misconception about trafficking human trafficking it's done at all ages by all people so when you're trying to address the big problem a human trafficking which we have a huge problem in the state of Arkansas you have to have a little broader they just middle age and that's that's what I'm trying to get to it has to be broader than what you're describing well I understand what you're saying but the question is is I don't think I don't think that you're really trying to get at trying to catch the eighteen and nineteen year olds having you're trying to. No and have a sexual relationship with the sixteen and seventeen year old I don't I don't think that's to you think you're trying to get maybe I'm wrong but I don't think that's that's certainly not what everyone thinks of when one thinks of human trafficking. You're recognized for a follow up. Thank you. I don't care if they're eighteen I don't care if they're seventy two I don't care if they're sixteen if they're involved in human trafficking. Then they need to pay the price. I see no other questions thank you Mr Rosenstein. No one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representative Lundstrum you're right you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you I'm I'm I want to cover a couple things this bill specifically right in the very beginning opening sentence it says an act to combat sex trafficking of minors we're talking about children ten eleven twelve all the way through this is a very specifically crafted bill that has to do with grooming of children it starts very early we're talking pictures words attacking children so this is a very tightly crafted built representative Gazaway we are updating the grooming because this is and something that's you're right it's a very difficult thing to do this is taken months of work to come up with this because it is difficult unfortunately the sex traffickers don't really care about the law we do that's why this is taking the time and energy to do this this is why the FBI the prosecutor's office the child exploitation tracks task force but the time and energy in this to get it right because grooming. Does take time these traffickers train these kids over time so when you say things like something hasn't happened nothing has happened really you send sex pictures to a ten year old eleven year old twelve year old US and take screenshots of their private and send them back nothing's happened I beg to differ I beg to differ whole heartedly if that were your child you might beg to differ to then we're not talking about college hijinks or playboy nobody cares about playboy. Those are minors in college we're talking about ten eleven and twelve year olds the groom these children and then put them on the sex trafficking circuit they started ten eleven and twelve something's happening or they wouldn't be grooming them. Then they move to the next stage. We need to start we need to put down a marker in Arkansas that our children are not up for grooming. That's why this bill is important that's why the prosecutors that's why the F. B. I. that's why into the light put the time and energy to say Arkansas's children are not available for grooming. So. I was for a good vote I'm sorry you close yes ma'am represent guess what you're recognized. I just want to say is I looked at it specially section one that's the definition section under the. Not a human trafficking statute the grooming I have any problems with that any objection I stated that I withdraw it I do think there are a few little issues with the language but I would never vote against a bill like this so intended supporters will make that clear. Thank members represent lunch from his clothes for bill would or wishes of the committee. I have a motion to do pass as amended. We have a motion to do pass as amended on the floors or any discussion representative call and you're recognized. Thank you madam chair and I understand that this is a very sensitive and very important topic and I think we all want to have a very strong laws against sex trafficking but it's exactly for that reason that we have to be smart about what we do and not a unintentionally cover things that are not related to sex trafficking and that's what this bill does unfortunately it involves things that are between a to minors two seventeen year olds talking about sex acts to each other boyfriend girlfriend that could be actually criminalized under this there are a lot of things in here that are just too broad and for that reason I think we need to be extra careful and not vote for it just because it deals with a topic that we all want to address the right way so I'm in now thank you. Members we have a motion of do pass as amended on the floor all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it the motion is carried. Members of the house bill seventeen forty. Represent one from you're recognized there is amendment. Thank you and I had. Sponsors members we have. A amendment to add sponsors is do I have a motion to adopt a motion to adopt all in favor please say aye. Motion carries the ayes have it represents Lundstrum you're recognized to present house bill seventeen forty one as amended. Thank you chairman dolling colleagues I'm I listened intently as representative Richardson presented his bill at a I think we have like minded in some ways this bill is setting conditions of release of bail on bail for persons who are accused of you have human trafficking offenses. this actually gives judges tools in the toolbox. Again like I stated earlier this is a lot of out of state money that's coming in and in state it's a serious amount of money. we have witnesses that are often threatened they're very very terrorized and afraid. These are large networks of cash. Sex trafficking is very sophisticated involves a lot of sophisticated information on these little apparatuses. When someone is brought before judge obviously you bail that's rich man poor man as we discussed earlier. But. You can't set bail so high but you can set parameters of bail you can set conditions and those conditions can be an ankle bracelet. Restricted movement. Restricted internet access you can remove fire arms refrain from illegal controlled substances you can set curfew you can set a cash bond. Those are all things that can be set. And then. You give those that judge Moore tools or conditions or choices with that I will take any questions. Members do we have any questions. Seeing no questions only individual signed up to speak against the bills Mr Rosenzweig Mr resins were considering the late. Our can you condense your objections police. Of the the objection is this really is just a incursion on the rulemaking powers of this Arkansas Supreme Court the rules already a rule a rule nine of the roof Arkansas rules of criminal procedure already permit a permit conditions of I will point out that the that the Fifty percent bond requirement that is put in here is is really Kerr is contradictory to all the bail bond statutes and all the Statutes and or call the. Maybach not only the bail bond statutes but also with rules of criminal procedure and again these people at this stage are innocent unless and until they are proven guilty I think that the circumscribing of the the current rules are are certainly brought enough and give the judges enough discretion. that this bill is unnecessary as well as being encouraging to the supreme court's rulemaking powers. President Collins you're recognized thank you Mr resins where other than the the cast bonds thirty percent which you said was not it was in contravention of the rules are all these things already in the judge's toolbox. The judges have power to to do that they have the power to two of. Wastes a to to place a request restrictions that. Ankle monitor say you've got to the some places a certain time of. The open and those other. And the those other criteria weekly reporting requirements okay thank you thank you vaccination And right this depends on the particular case is this person nineteen of this person thirty nine is this person that. Lepturges accomplices person charged principal this is person have a jobs first not have a job this is first and have a job you know requires using the internet. Senator and those are handled by judges on a. No on a case by case basis. Any other questions. Thank you Mr Rosenstein. There's someone else signed up representative western you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you representative Dalby I'm German Dalby M. he is right about one thing we will always agree on innocent until proven guilty is absolutely true that is a hallmark of our system. if it weren't necessary I don't think you would be here. But this bill is necessary we do need to set parameters this bill also says if if the judge can't guarantee that they are not a flight risk then they these things to apply so we do need this bill. We need to give judges the power and the court to set conditions. Sex trafficking is serious when you talk about the cash bond. This is a lot of money this is a lot of money sex trafficking produces a lot of money judge can decide that we trust them with that. This setting some restrictions we need to do this. When a sex trafficker is released the first thing they do is harass their victims. We need to put down a marker in Arkansas not here not now not ever. With that I would appreciate a good vote. Members represent a lunch from his clothes for bill what are the wishes of the committee. What we have a motion to do pass as amended any discussion all in favor of the motion to do pass as amended please say aye. Any oppose ayes the ayes have it the motion carries congratulations you've passed your bill thank you colleagues have house bill seventeen forty two members there is an amendment there's also a financial impact statement madam chairman if I can interrupt that is not agreed upon bill with prosecutors Association and I would like to hold that target the language corrected okay thank you I'm sorry I didn't have that noted so we'll pass over that bill for today. With that representative Cavenaugh you're recognized president Senate bill two fifty six again thank you committee for your time. Representative Cavenaugh you're recognized. Thank you madam chair this bill is probably pretty the most simple bill we've probably heard maybe the most non controversial it for today so basically this is setting up the rules for an administrative subpoena for internet offense against a minor so this is going to give us what we can do for to do a internet provider how we can subpoena their records it tells us what we can subpoena it also tells them the things that they may not released and it goes on to say the things that we can do with the subpoena served when the process is over how they should destroy your Rick get rid of the records that they subpoenaed and with that I'd take any questions. Members are there any questions. We have no one who signed up the representative Collins. Sorry not sorry question it's not fun for me either I just wanted to ask you do you believe that this subpoena that is getting information that would be protected and would otherwise need to warrant under the Fourth Amendment. Not my understanding it doesn't. if you could just a quick follow up if you could save why do you believe that this would not need a judicial warrant. Well I mean these are the things and I probably can have that. To speak more to the actual question that you're asking but from what we understand it's been cleared and there's no issue. State your name when you are recognized Mary Claire McLaurin I'm an attorney with the Arkansas state police. At representative Collins that the reason that we don't believe that a warrant is required to obtain the information that we're seeking for our ICAC investigators to be able to get through this administrative subpoena is that it is limited to certain subscriber information it does not allow us to get things such as the content of messages data anything. Right account geolocation information of of the actual person as they move about which is addressed in carpenter versus United States I think Supreme Court case. the Arkansas Supreme Court I I just Arkansas Supreme Court announcmenet United States Supreme Court the Arkansas Supreme Court held in Lewis versus state that subscriber information such as this is not it does not implicate Fourth Amendment constitutional protections for the actual subscriber the records are held by a third party and in both that case in enhancing versus state which was decided by the Arkansas Supreme Court hands he is spelled H. A. M. Z. Y.. the Arkansas Supreme Court held that basically there is no privacy interest in in your telephone records or you the name and subscriber information of of an account which is really all we're looking for here we want to know we want to identify the person or the location where the messages are coming from that are involved in the internet exploitation of a minor in both of those cases the Arkansas Supreme Court held that the defendant did not have the standing to have the records that were ultimately retrieve suppressed under Fourth Amendment concerns of search and seizure an invalid search and seizure because they had no privacy interest and the records were the property of the third party who upon whom the subpoena was served. Represent Gazaway you're recognized thank you madam chair ms McLaurin I know you say that this only pertains to subscriber information but. When I read the bill and looking on Page two line a scene issued under this section may require the production of any records any records. Or other documentation relevant to the investigation including without limitation and then it goes on for six things including without limitation if you just want subscriber information why don't you say so. These items are what would give us the subscriber information and if you look down at subsection D. it is specifically excludes basically the bulk of what would be anything else all we're trying to do is identify. Who the person is and where the location where their current location isn't and speaking that that brings up the point about the warrant and why Warren is not sufficient to get this information a warrant to can only be issued by a court with jurisdiction if we don't know where the party is which is what we're trying to ascertain by getting these by using the subpoenas we don't know what county to seek a warrant from or to get a prosecutor subpoena from. You're recognized for follow up thank you well done how are these investigations conducted now I mean I take it you guys are there's like a community that exist you're doing these investigations you're getting this information now Can you explain that I can give some information as to that I would if you if you want more detailed information I would one or deferred to captain Stacy road to is here she's with our C. ID but I do know that as as it is we seek we seek we try to find the information using a prosecutor's subpoena for the most part but but as I indicated we don't always know the correct we might have an idea primarily maybe it's where the juvenile is located or the minor is located but that's not always correct and so it takes time to find out those things and we may end up getting having the wrong prosecutor or the wrong a judge issue a subpoena or warrant in which case we're not going to get the data that we need and it's going to take more time and these are only in cases involving internet crimes against a child sexual exploitation of a child on the internet. Which we believe are exigent circumstances or emergency circumstances. Members any other questions. Seeing no questions thank you we're clear for coming. Representative Cavenaugh you're recognized close for your bill thank you madam chair and with all that questions be answered I'm closing my bill and I make a motion to pass. Members who have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion. Represent Gazaway you're recognized for discussion I hate to speak against this bill but. I just I think there are some issues I just don't like the idea of giving carte Blanche subpoena power to the Arkansas state police understand the goals were the these are important investigations that we have a warrant requirement for a reason warrants have to be issued on probable cause they're conducting these investigations already but it's a tremendous power they were giving a state agency of subpoena power which which appears to me to be pretty much carte launch I think it goes too far be happy to work on it and try to get to something that I can support but I just I can't support. Members any other discussion. Seeing no further discussion the motion on the floor is to pass all in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it the bill has passed. Members I think that takes us to the end of our day thank you for your time and your attention don't worry we're coming back on Thursday and we have at least ten bills but be prepared for more thank you very much for your time and your attention and