Judiciary Committee - Senate

You can make a two minute bill center got. Thank you for. So if we don't have any. Senator Tucker what will. House Bill sixteen fifty one. Start the timer. Thank you Mr thank you members of the committee. this bill removes the requirement that for a a person who is a victim of sexual assault in the second degree. There were the requirement at their assailant not be their spouse. Right now that's in the law it used to be the case for someone fourteen years of age or younger could be married that is no longer the case and so now in order for prosecutor to prove every element of the crime they have to prove that a victim of sexual assault who's fourteen years or younger is not the person's spouse I have to ask the victim on the stand whether they're married to their the person who assaulted them and we will the question and answer that question is always that they're not married by removing this provision from the bill it just from removes the requirement for the prosecutor have to ask that question and the prosecuting attorney's association is in support of the bill and that's it I'll be happy to take any questions. This is a sponsored amendment but we need to Okay well first there's an amendment only adds me as a Senate sponsor that's that's all the amendment does. Okay we we have an amendment of two house bill sixteen fifty one adding Senator Tucker as a. As the Senate sponsor. The motion to pass from center Johnson. Second from Senator Hendren in discussion here not all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congradulations Senator Tucker you have pastor Amendment thank you. And and that's that's the full presentation of the bill but I'd be happy to take any questions Senator Ballinger you're recognized. Questions from the committee. C. knows or anyone here because five for against the bill. Saying say no one of motion from Senator Ballinger I'm sorry Senator Tucker would you like to close for your bill I'll close thank you Mr Senator Ballinger motion. Second from centers as amended us circumcenter Stubblefield any discussion here none all promotion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations Senator Tucker you have passed your bill thank you Mr thank you members as amended. Do you have a two minute bill sent ****. Okay. looks like is forced to minute bills are probably at. What what bill Senator Ballinger. House Bill fifteen ninety seven. In Arkansas we make haven't Kate the containers of a I prefer a or or yeah pepper spray of over bigger size make it unlawful well that also includes most canisters of bear spray it so we're just increasing that amount from fifty cece's two three hundred mil eight milliliters away most remarkable bear sprays are are not illegal. Happy to answer any questions. Questions from the committee. Try to get representative Boyd just take out all together but is much more much more careful and I am so. Scene no questions is there anybody here to testify before against single one test five four against Senator Ballinger we look closer bill yeah I I that I'm close I move to pass a motion do pass second from Central Ross in the discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye All opposed a security resolution Senator Ballinger you faster bill. We will move on we have several Bills that have The people who will travel to testify. Of a let me stop because affixed to repeat find a place to take you represent a riot are you here to run a bill or you just observing. Okay just wanna be sure. Okay glad to have you representive font of House Bill fifteen oh five. Thank you Mr chair committing. I'm here to present today and the house bill fifteen oh five which I'm bringing on behalf of the hit and run project which is based in Fayetteville here's what it does. It reduces the incentive to flee if you have hit someone. We are saying if there is a serious physical injury to or death to another person he or she upon conviction is guilty of a Class B. felony currently it is a Class D. felony what we're wanting to do is say you stop you go back you check you see if someone is seriously injured. I have a couple of people with me today to present testimony we heard stories and House Committee from our own members as well as some of our staff in the house the been seriously impacted by this so at this time may I bring them forward. Yes you may. You may stay there represent five if you would like we can bring them around of this about remove somebody consent was audience making come to the site of more than one. If you all would identify yourself for the record please. My name is Stacy Bankston. We have a base for. Okay. You're recognized miss banks and. Good evening I'm here to advocate for the passage of house bill fifteen oh five concerning the penalty for a driver who flees the scene of an accident that results in a personal injury or death. My motives here are are two fold first I'm a licensed clinical social worker so in accordance with my profession it is my ethical responsibility to address social justice issues on behalf of the people of our great state more importantly I'm here as a mother who lost her child and hit and run incident. According to the US department of transportation hidden runs claimed the lives of nearly fifteen people per day. And for the year two thousand nineteen the Arkansas state police department of highway safety reported nine thousand seven hundred sixty one hit and run incidents hundred and sixty of those incidents were pedestrians involved with Hendren. Fourteen fatalities sorry. The numbers for the year twenty twenty will not be completed for about another three months however the officer that I spoke to reported that the numbers that data gathered for the year twenty twenty so far have exceeded the previous year. Three hundred sixty seven pedestrian involved incidents with twenty five fatalities the cause for the increasing numbers despite the decrease activity do the pandemic is unknown. At one thirteen AM on September twelfth two thousand fifteen in Neosho Missouri two cars left the parking lot of a local drinking establishment began drag racing north into town. At the same time my nineteen year old son. Matthew Stevens was walking back. In the town from seeing his girlfriend at Crowder college and he was happy. My son's body was hit with such force that it caused an aortic tearing this body was thrown the length of a football field. The driver who was. Sorry. The driver left me some highway. Like a piece of discarded garbage. With my undergrad degree in criminal justice I assume that. As any ordinary person with that the driver would be charged with vehicular homicide or manslaughter and what I learned is that because I crime couldn't be proven at the time that he hit my child. And fled the scene he would only be charged with leaving the scene of an accident. In Missouri at that time in two thousand fifteen the penalty for failing the leaving the scene was up to four years in prison and a five thousand dollar fine. It cost me ten thousand dollars to bury my child. Ultimately the driver was sentenced to three years and serve less than eighteen months. In two thousand seventeen I started a nonprofit called hit run project and I witness Missouri's governor signed a law to strengthen the penalty for leaving the scene. Under current Arkansas law flee the scene is a Class D. felony which carries a penalty of up to six years and up to a ten thousand dollar fine. Please ask yourselves of six years would be enough if this happened to you or your loved one. Lastly I'd like to share with you why advocate so hard and tell my son's story. I'm the mother of four boys. I proudly display their pictures and update them each school year. Every year I am acutely aware that as I change my other son's pictures that Matthews never changes. It never will. The death of a life physically or death of a way of life due to the internal external injuries never changes for the victim or their families it is a line of demarcation. I'm asking for do pass and I thank you very much for letting me speak here today. Any questions from the committee. Senator Garner. The master or not if this is been address forgot heroes from different bill why wouldn't issues fall under other criminal penalties such as the apartment slaughter. Murdered just regular crimes for. killing somebody in this situation or her permit by wouldn't you just find different parts of the criminal code to address this already. So it okay we actually don't with a with battery for instance you know what we the bill that we just passed off the floor in the Senate and what the what the the bill requires specific mental state right so if you were drinking and driving and you hit somebody you actually have a member I think it's a B. felony if you if you because serious problem bodily harm right so if if that gentleman had been caught at the time that he could have if if the Missouri laws seems Arkansas he could have been been charge for the battery effectively will stop them with the fled he probably would've been charged with with batteries because he was probably drunk at the time instead because the left the crime that he could be charged with was the low level. I am a flee the city and so that's the reason why the why it's necessary is because they were that that tool isn't there so it's hitting somebody is a battery if you're not if you're not either intending to do it for doing it recklessly so but if you can't put on the evidence if because they've they've left the scene that in all you know is that they've left the scene of the accident. That makes sense. And if I could point out I'm not an attorney that's why I really wanted Bob to answer that but that is this is in the transportation code so mental state is not required and the Supreme Court of Arkansas has upheld this as well that and and the cases that we're talking about mental state would not be required. Other questions from the committee Senator Garner. Okay so this might be you cannot open a new can of worms that so if I do not know I hit the person. I don't have a mental state where I understood that I hit them but yet then down the road I'm found is that is address here to so the answer is instance address but not a specifically in here so if it doesn't it doesn't have a specific mental state that's supports strict liability have you can't get required ability and in the criminal code so you know there are some things inside from civil standpoint that if you produce it if you're the one who has control over it It injure somebody you can be civilly liable but in this case you have to actually be aware that you've left the scene of an accident and went order to get the prosecution. So just drive down the road having no idea that you you actually hit somebody ran into somebody you can be prosecuted for that if you there is there is no no. The potential mental state that's currently in the code now yeah that it be an attorney other in in the criminal code itself if it doesn't specifically say what the mental state is required like recklessly and in the secondary battery that it be knowingly have to be aware that you have left the scene of an accident. Thank. Other questions from the committee. Seeing done saying none of thank you ma'am and of. Mr Rosenzweig since I've already got the other for up here I will let the artist Fund then we'll we'll go to the against I know that's not the way we normally do it but. If you identify yourself for the record good evening my name is Kimberly Mondale I live insurer would and I'm here to speak on behalf of house bill fifteen oh five. On July the eighteenth of two thousand and nineteen my husband John Mendell went for a bike ride. John was an avid cyclist who love the sport and in all honesty he was really good at it he had completed the big dam bridge one hundred mile race about five times the right across Indiana known as the rain ride which is about a hundred and sixty miles one day he had done that about eight times. In addition to numerous other races that he had completed. John was extremely healthy and he was extremely athletic and together we completed two marathons in a device one. John always put safety first he always wore his helmet and he always made sure that he had his tail lights on his bike on in this headlight even during the day and we have had a conversation about that and he said even during the day that helped motorists seeking better. As you're aware in the middle of July gets darker and nine o'clock at night and so John left around six thirty so broad daylight and went for a ride in about eight fifteen that evening I had a sure would police officer on my doorstep. I didn't fully understand what happened until I got to the hospital and to share with detectives were there and that's when I found out that this was not an accident it was a hit and run. According to Johns M. Strava app that he used to track his miles and he had traveled about twenty miles when a motorist came up behind him hitting from behind and left him on the side of the road. We found out later that evening the extent of his injuries when the neurosurgeon told us that his injuries were quote catastrophic. John died four days later on July twenty second two thousand and nineteen and we had only been married for fifty eight days. I've spent the last twenty months trying to understand something that I just makes absolutely no sense. I don't understand how someone could hit somebody purposely leave them there on the side of the road. And when you find yourself in this situation you look for opportunities to try to make a difference and try to have an impact to help other people and that's why I'm here today to speak on behalf of this legislation. I have the utmost respect for the sure would police department who never quit investigating the case. And about eight months after John was killed an arrest was made the individual who is currently imply ski county jail awaiting trial is charged with negligent homicide while intoxicated which is a B. felony in addition to leaving the scene which is a D. felony. When you find yourself in a situation like this you become hyper aware hyper vigilant of other cases that are very similar to yours and in many of those cases that I found even since our case. The most the person is charged with they don't have the other evidence the most the person charged with is leaving the scene which again is only a D. felony. And to put that into a little bit of perspective there is there is a law currently that if someone fails to appear in court which is a serious incident but if they fail to appear in court on us on a felony charge alone they can be charged with a C. felony which is one step higher but leaving somebody on the side of the road to die. It's only a bit D. felony at this point. If this bill passes it will have no impact on our case our case is already working its way through that slowly and surely through the court system so this will have no impact on our case but if you can help somebody else then I fully support it. I'm asked to at times I feel like I'll ever get justice and in all honesty justice's I want my husband back. But that's not gonna happen but if the laws of the land can better reflect the severity of the crime and that does give families more recourse for action against the at at against the actions of others. I'm also asked to to describe the kind of person that John was and the words gentle soul always come to my mind. John was a quiet humble mild mannered person. He was the most patient person that I've ever met. First and foremost you truly love the lord he loved his family and I know that he deeply Love Me. John was more than just a statistic he was more than just a tragedy he was a wonderful person who would have literally given the shirt off his back even to the individual who left him on the side of the road. And if by being here today helps keep his memory alive and help someone in the process but my hope and my sincere prayer is that something good can come from this horrible nightmare I appreciate the opportunity to be here and I thank you for your support. The from the committee. Senator Hendren. Thank you Mr chairman thank you for your testimony so are you that I understand that the only charge that really that they're going to continue to pursue is fleeing the scene in our case we have the B. felony as well and negligent homicide while intoxicated they had enough evidence to charge him with that plus fleeing the scene but in other cases that they don't they are not able to get those additional charges in some cases there was a case that occurred after hours and when the person was arrested they were only charged with the D. felony they didn't have and any of the other evidence to charge them with additional crimes so they have to have some evidence. The shows that they were intoxicated to you through Rochester money or bar something because obviously the blood test wouldn't work if it's that much later yeah they have they had enough to charge him with both in our case but in a lot of cases they don't have that additional evidence to charge them with anything more than fleeing the scene again which is a D. felony and then maybe some misdemeanor charges and some of those cases but in our case I guess you know we they have the additional but in the in other cases all they can charge them with this late in the same thank you. That's what we want to change because we want to make it so that it's not better for you to flee the scene and sober up I get the drugs out of your system than it is to stay and face the consequences of your actions. Other questions from the committee. C. none thank vote thank you for your testimony of and we have Jeff Rosenzweig signed up to speak against. Mr rosewater I apologize for not taking you in between sorry but you've signed on late so not a problem Mr chairman of Jefferson sorry Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers and if you enact this bill as it is you're probably enacting yourself into a constitutional problem that would end up with the opposite effect from what you're trying to do I'm going to respectfully disagree with Senator Ballinger is legal opinion on on the mental on the mental state in the case called Stivers versus state about twenty years ago the Arkansas Supreme Court held that this was a strict liability offence that there are there is no mental state no basis of knowledge or anything else accompanied with this it It is pure strict liability a strict liability offence it is possible in some circumstances be in under Arkansas state law it is possible only when the way when the Supreme Court discerns a specific Legislative intent not to have a mental state and they held that in Stivers and the size of by the legislative inaction sit in the two decades approximately since the end of your it is essentially implied that the legislature agrees with the interpretation of enacted in Stivers here's the problem now you are raising this from a D. felony assuming this passes to A. B. felony in other words where the maximum is not six but the maximum. He is twenty. the problem there is the U. S. Supreme Court has frowned on of severe penalties for of strict liability offenses most strict liability offenses deal with heavily regulated industries that type thing with explosives with. putting tainted food in the circulation that type that type of thing in a case called United States of purses Or read a mental state into a statute. it because the penalty was up to ten years and they specifically said if it's ten it is something that high we don't want to we don't we have a problem with the idea of having a ten year strict liability statute this would double that now you can solve the problem by inserting a mental state into the statute knowingly recklessly for or or some other things to make it a strict liability make it not a strict liability so you have some knowledge that you have that you have hit something and you just didn't hit a box on the side of the road if you know and in the middle of a rain storm or something like that anyway I can guarantee you that this passes the way it is that the there is going to be a constitutional challenge to a penalty a strict liability penalty of up of a Class B. and we are you this if the house Judiciary probably Asli didn't succeed in that argument but I would suggest strongly that you do so either leave the statute as is or insert a mental state into the statute to avoid the constitutional problems. Senator Garner believe your first yes Sir thank you. That addresses my concern I imagine the court interpreted as a strict liability because it's so hard to determine mental state whenever somebody left as a witness is accurately described it wants to go on it's very hard to do so in the simple fleeing case that would make sense. I think. If we could propose an amendment to put knowingly or recklessly into just a Class B. felonies and as such a more severe charge I think that be a property action just because it's so much more of a penalty and I don't also have done the study of the car the constitutional case but. I'd hate for us to pass this and then get it stricken down in court and then we don't have this protection of the law so that people her like they describe isn't isn't protected in that way and that the worst result in not passing it all in my opinion so we could add that means radio which I don't which I think would make it much better I think would be a very good ad and make this much more constitutionally suspect cost to flee strong and also make it so we really punish those people who do this no one with thank you Mr when you're ready. You're asking me I was turning that into question. Okay yes I I would agree with senator garners a proposal I'm I'm I am happy to sit down with someone and you have my input on on on it as well do you wish. Senator Ross. When you stated that the US Supreme Court frowned on that what what time period would that have been about ten years ago approximately session you know their number of their number similar decisions over the years saying strict liability statutes are can be can be constitutional apart but generally and in your heavily regulated situations okay thank you thank you Mr. Other questions from the committee to enter. So for us non lawyers District liability thing explained to me if if somebody has a horrible accident or whatever is reckless and runs over somebody. It are they is it let's say it was an accident they were intoxicated they came around the corner that didn't see the person and they and they run over him with the under this B. per be susceptible to a twenty year prison sentence are you don't have to be counted under this is current as currently written you wouldn't have to even know you hit someone image assuming you flat right you have to have fled well we well you don't even know that your fleet unit right prince you don't know for instance you think you had a box of that is falling off the truck for instance and or you or you don't know what your hip visibilities pour it several this issue is cut comes up occasionally various other states in most other states have and have some sort of of at least awareness knowledge requirement now it's gonna be pretty rare it's going to be pretty rare that that the From a factual standpoint that people are aware of a hit someone but there are going to be weather conditions lighting conditions that type of thing where people literally aren't going to be where that they hit a person as opposed to a dog or deer or or just and then on an inanimate object and it was saying someone stocks. They don't may not see anything turns out the person was knocked off into a ditch and you don't see him or hear me but you can you you think you're all right and you leave your still committing an offense that's the problem that's that's the issue was with strict liability and it took liability that's the same as if you were drunk and careless or whatever as far as how you would be punished under this statute no Strickler Bentley if you were if you were drunk and careless are you if you can you can see it or whatever is there to be a possibly negligence issue a review could be reckless or negligent but the question is. If you under the law is currently written if your total you can be totally sober and not realize you hit someone or if someone OR something and and none the less be guilty of of a felony of a Class B. felony record or a court will be under the current statute it's a Class D. felony zero to six what this would do it would raise it to HB per five to twenty if there were what is called serious if there were serious physical injury but as it's currently written does nothing with regard to ending mental state that you knew you were doing anything at all so it doesn't distinguish between somebody who didn't know and that's going to do is get better that is correct yes Sir that's the that's the problem with the current law as interpreted in this type under stripes thank you. Senator Johnson. So if this is amended. And put in knowingly or willingly willing fully. If you put that in. Does that help you as a defense lawyer give a defense to. This action well I think it helps the state in the what number one it helps the state in that it makes the statute quarterly constitutional and your and the state doesn't have to worry about and I'm constitutional statute of but yes I mean if the obviously that if the state has to prove that one knowingly did something with the state can prove that can't the state can prove that by the the circumstances was it was it what were the weather conditions were built lighting conditions did you stop how much you know how much damage was there to the front of your car that that type of thing and If you know if you're going to punish someone four of twenty years in prison the this state should have to prove in some fashion that you that you had an idea that you had done something wrong. How much are you worried about. That. Or giving a defense to the people are you paying for well I'm a defense lawyer side obviously I like having a defense but I'm but the the point that I'm making is system that the question of whether a strict liability or not was hotly contested by the Supreme Court held it was and by the in action in the statute the legislature that hasn't changed this is the first time apparently that's that something's come up here within in two decades on it but the and I'm I'm I think the Committee Miller Nicks needs to be aware of of the circumspection by which the the US Supreme Court looks at. Look set strict liability statutes and by raising the penalty from six years to twenty years you're colliding with that but I also think you are. I've also thank you all so would probably agree that it should be fair that that you you you have to at least know you have have an idea or no you're doing something wrong before you can be criminally charged and thrown in prison for twenty years we're doing so. Mr Rosenzweig. I know the difference between hitting a boxer a fifty pound dog or in the P. two hundred fifty pound man on the back so I appreciate your argument and and your willingness to defend these these actions build method I don't know if I can go there. Social Stubblefield. The road rage exactly where the constitution doesn't references issue situation like this well it's it's it's it's in the are they they found the issues in the due process it's of the U. S. Supreme Court is held in the constitution does it reference situation like hit and run yeah hit and run is not just directly stated in the constitution what the U. S. Supreme Court has held that due process read due process of requires in most cases some sort of service some sort of culpable mental state and they've they've held where a culpable mental state is not required it's a judicial gloss on the constitution but hit and run does not appear in the arc in the constitution. Neither neither is where one of the federal government rule that marijuana is illegal in the fifty states. The seller or recreational medical you. Okay the fact the federal statute criminalizing marijuana has not been repealed. So it's still illegal that's my understanding I under federal law but is not under many state many states sell marijuana I I don't have the numbers on that. Thank you Mr. Other questions from the committee. I non thank you Mr rose one. Well we don't have anyone else signed up to speak for against. Ballinger represent five. I'm not an attorney so I've had to rely on the advice of attorneys that I trust and talk to you what they have told me is that this is been the statute all along because this is under the transportation code and under that there is no intent required or what's the fancy word Bob men's rally that that is not required under the transportation code that is only required in criminal codes it's already a felony ID felony. And in the case that Mister resins ACT of commented on Stivers what the attorneys who have helped me have said in their reading of that that it actually helps my case with the bill that I'm presenting to you because the Supreme Court affirmed in at that the mental state was not required what I'm saying is if you flee. You have intent there because you intended to fully you left you didn't turn around and see if that was a fox you didn't turn around to see if that was a box. You laughed and maybe there was a reason why you left because you had something in your system that you knew you'd be better off to flaky and dry out for a couple of days and then see if they could find you it's just like anything else the case has to be proven but I believe this is a very good bill and I encourage you to vote yes. So. Well let me let me just make sure I do a point of clarification if I would have a slow down and listen to the the House sponsor I mean she she said that is strictly ability my assumption was that it was was not because typically it's not but because it is found in the transportation code it is and in fact what wild the other funds for testifying I started second guessing myself and did a little research and I found the state average case and and it is it is a strict liability as is the code it's not we're not changing anything the go ahead run is required ability. So so I I hate admitting I'm wrong that I was wrong about that so are you all closed. I am closed. Okay. Search for. I don't know if it's proper to ask questions to sponsor she said she's close on my just discuss the amendment are the emotions they are close but yes I will all questions since no one has made a motion. Thank you. If you do this for you go to criminal court or you go to traffic court. You would do it in the in circuit court because level the crime. Okay. Action from the Committee. I make a motion to pass we'll motion to pass from Senator Ballinger. Second from center Johnson any discussion Senator Garner. Thank you at the moment really bad heartburn with this bill because the testimony given that I've heard and I know there was some I came in like four was very compelling understanding the case for why you want to do this but it just seems to me there for gonna put people in jail for twenty years when there is no. Mental state which means that could happen to every single person is room every person you would pull over by here would pull over immediately can face consequences but if you didn't know you hit somebody Senate person failed right before you got there say is a dark nine is raining. You will be charged a Class B. felony twenty plus years in jail you will because it Strickland building which manage whatever your mental status whatever the reason for it is does not matter it doesn't. As long as the court approved you were the person that hit them you are guilty. No if ands or but you can offer defense to a basically. Every single one of us could do that. And simply put in the men's raha of knowingly or recklessly or something like that would solve that problem the constitutionality issue which I do not know if that would how that would work I imagine that it would run into some issues and that would make it so much better because I'm terrified if we passed this it could happen to innocent person who allegedly didn't know or thrown out by the court or in the same spot we are now so that's why why very much care about with these people said I'd really do it's just my heartburn thank you. The Senator Hendren. Yeah and the discussion phase I guess I kind of like to ask our committee of attorney down there Senator Ballenger on this Class B. felony thing. It's up to twenty years can I do it can they adjust that down to a low limited if the court does determine that it was situation senator garner was discussing yeah it doesn't have to be the Max of twenty years so it's five to twenty six five minimum I think I think that's right with B. felonies five to twenty and that the that it is now is up to six and it's is there a minimum that. I'm I really don't know what the what the minimum is on the date. I mean it's a zero six. And I guess I'd ask you Senator Ballinger again are you comfortable without having any state of mind requirement with a penalty that harsh. And what I would say is that I am I I understand the need I understand the situation that were that were in I I the fact that that it's not likely to happen the people will have no recollection or idea of a the fact that they hit somebody makes a where the the chance of somebody who really had no knowledge that they hit someone or should have known that someone had taken off I think is minimal I minimized and so I can hi I'm okay with the bill as written. I mean I think. The sponsor of C. Fite makes a good point that there is the added action that they'd left that they didn't stay and of course there could be some extenuating circumstances for that but. You got it it It expect that's a whole lot of circumstances that fall into effect for somebody to get. In a bad way on this you have to have accidentally done it not realize you don't and then fled not stopped to look around whatever or have been able to find anything. Right. Other discussion from the Committee. We will have a motion and a second hearing no other discussion all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed. Motion carried congratulations representative fight you have passed your bill thank you Mr chair thank you Committee. Senator garner do you have any witnesses here for your bills. Okay anyone else have witnesses I have several. Of first and I don't think I need to leave the chair for this S. B. four fifty five. We need to expunge the vote on J. and L. three thirty five Amendment. the Amendment that we passed here the reason we need to expunge the vote is because the bill did not pass so it hasn't it was wasn't going to be engrossed so are in the amendment as members on on the floor so would be engrossed so we need to expunge the vote by which it passed here. And so I guess I is it. Okay for the chair to make a motion the the good the motion to expunge the vote own amendment J. N. L. the but which J. and L. three thirty five. In my past illness before fifty five. Second from Senator Rice any discussion. Here none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed. Motion carried also the a vote on the amendment has been expunged. The. If no one else has witnesses of. Senator Hendren. I'm gonna leave the chair and ask you to come up I will take my folder with me because I've got several bills here and I don't know any other way to do it thank you to bring yours. Senator Clark okay you're going to for fifty five years you're recognized for no in the end let me set the all we need to do is expose at the moment that's only result agenda so anyone here for four fifty five it is not running today all right are you in what twenty twenty five thirteen of I think. C. five sixty one you gotta hope after it is eighty five twenty nine may move was the fastest all right Senate bill five twenty nine Senator Clark you're recognized to explain the bill you don't have any amendments to you for this one no okay. Arkansas on the. S. B. five twenty nine has been amended. Of sense always presented to you. Of. No it's been amended and it is engrossed what you see is the the bill as it is now. Then the. The at. The meat of the bill is on page two. Four one nine. An affidavit described under subdivision of this section shall be filed with the local law enforcement agency having jurisdiction along with reporting to the law enforcement agency in following any required documents proving that the owner has located his or her stolen property in the possession of the dealer the report to law enforcement described under subdivision a to a of this section is not a presumption that the deal received the stolen property and unlawful manner. An owner who knowingly filed a false affidavit are false police report is subject to prosecution. The Then it goes to the goes back to current law English reasonable cause exists within seven days or to the root. Later of the receipt of an affidavit described in the written release either conditional out right of any property hold issued by any law enforcement agency with respect to the bill full stop identifiable stolen property a dealer shall deliver the identical stolen property to the owner or if apple will pay the owner of the stolen property full restitution. In order to file legal action in a court of competent jurisdiction to determine over ownership I'm not sure what part of this or not underline committee of their peers means should be. The because what is changed to your is the. It be for the owner had to. Of in the lines nineteen through twenty three of and in lines twenty seven through twenty eight which are not underline the owner had to if. The. Pawnbroker did not return the property the owner had to file an action in this case the pawn broker has to return the property up or file an action. so I've never seen one that did not have the right parts under one but. but that is certainly different from what the law. Says. I'll be happy to take any questions. Okay for next nation of the bill we got a question for members. Senator garner you're recognized for a question Mr so before we were worried about the full restitution and then having to pay the person back and all that and looks like you just. At the affidavit part based on the pay the full amount back correct of now what is. I should say now of. it's nineteen again which I am almost positive as new language although it's not underlined unless reasonable cause exists within seven days after the later of the receipt of an affidavit in the written release either conditional out right of any property hold issued by law enforcement a dealer shall deliver the and that was before there was no current law that's current I'm looking at your old version not interrupt you Sir but if that's current law and let's RES we're calls this is what your old version already had on not underline that's not the in in the amendment either. So I guess I'm just a I'm confused because when we discussed it last time there was no shall. We have added the affidavit of. With local law enforcement. Sorry I guess a Senator Clark I'll ask I'm trying to understand it myself here is when you say upon the top part there in lines five through eight. Just an owner stolen property may request the dealer return the property without charge or provide full restitution so they can request that. I was I think we talked about this last time I mean. You request all you want the guy to say I'm doing either one and answer some requirement maybe that's what the next section is because a it looks like. In either of those cases whether you're wanting the item return or full restitution then I guess that's what you have to complete section two a. and be there correct. Right so you have to vote fill out an affidavit. And the final report with law enforcement. And I guess I'm still confused does this mean the pawn shop guy. Does he say okay your question my answer still no is a user or. What is his obligation does he have to give it back Izzy get a choice between given it back a full restitution or. Or does he just have to say I kind request noted press on. What I read it to say it was supposed to say. Is. The. One toward. A dealer shall deliver the which is already there deliver the default stolen property to the owner unless reasonable cause exists with back on line nineteen. Okay all right any other questions Senator Garner thank Mr so it I'm kind of reading through it. The big changes or provide for restitution which is before you just had to get the property back now I have to cut you a check I'm assuming for that property if I do not have it. Right yes so if I've pawn shop so did they have to write a check now. The only problem couple problems is the affidavit describes says proving that the owner has located his or her storm property in the possession of the dealer so the dealer would have to possess it if they have sold it they do not possess it which means the affidavit itself. Would be in you couldn't filed the affidavit to say they're possessing it to get for restitution you can. You can follow affidavit and go back in the property not be there yeah you could I mean if you can upon shop and I see I just saw that last week man I'm sorry then I would have possession of it which are affidavit was say I have to have possession of it that seems like a conflict in which you're trying to attend that makes sense. It's real confused about this beyond what you. The yeah I don't know what's been so hard the. My reading of it is you found the property the only reason for the full restitution issue from the property and because the center are you may have found the property yesterday last week two weeks ago of and it's no longer there but it was in possession of any of the that's how that's how you would know that it was there. What were again. What we've been trying to write the didn't seem that complicated was that you didn't you if your property is there you know you're properties there you don't have to buy back. Any other questions. Senator Ballinger recognized. Thank you Mr so it and and I think that this I think this is something that probably ought to be cleared up but there's no requirement in here specifically that says the one to file the affidavit that they can't sell the property. Right in your in your bill doesn't doesn't change that the the thing that from my standpoint the restitution issue restitution is you don't want to you don't want to empower the person who knows that they have so on property or believe that they have stolen property to decide to sell the property in and pay restitution right you don't want to give them that option so that shouldn't be ever a situation where where this code section would come in to play that you would be paying out restitution right so if you're aware that they have the have the property you should filed the affidavit and the the pawn shop or whatever it is that has a property business property should hold the property not sell it. Until until this the matter is Is decided either that it's released or you know the. It is a reason why you say offer or offer restitution is the assumption is that the property has been liquid and. Yes all right so so what better but we're not talking about. To Senator garner's point we're not talking about coming up in the and finding out that this this in the shop had sold this property previously event file restitution or filed the affidavit in the order to get restitution. We are we're probably out of audit explain that Blake set out a status mechanism for for doing that. I don't disagree of the full restitution which has been in the bill from the beginning was wrought not really the point of it was not my language the point was. Post being able to as testimony last time is folks finding their property no one is there property of and being able to prove it's their property actually and then having to pay to get it back. And trying to. The change that. Because as we read last time Can request. But somehow we missed. M. line twenty three shall. Which would appear to say that. Already must retirement unless reasonable calls exist or less investigations to English as a whole from law enforcement. Right I mean it looks like that will the that word possibly just not obeying the law. Are you finishing around yeah. So Senator Clark could you just explain in like small words for those of us that struggle what is it you're trying to do here that that's not currently being done. For. This still E.. To be able to get their property back without having the to pay of the pawnbroker anybody else for. So basically a right to recover your property if you find this at a pawn shop if anybody else has its center and if if I bought it you bought it. It's of I think you can be charged with theft by receiving even though the tennis. and you end up the law enforcement come get it if if they're sufficient proof that it's that belong to the person who stole from but. What was testified to last time as there's lots of cases of where people are having to bother property back and I know I've witnessed that. Myself. I mean doesn't line twenty four and twenty five by itself accomplish that. I think so. I mean I would of the. The. No longer. So I can pull this down again. But you know I would have been happy with an answer that Hey that's what the law already says we need to we need to look at enforcement. But that's not the answer that I have gotten so far. Yeah I mean I think with the changes you're making in section twenty five is significant because it's making something available does not which is because right as you said if they go in the person so I don't have it anymore you can't return it but you're making a possibility for restitution that's I don't see in the current code. Any other questions or comments on yes center Ballinger yeah I would just say it honestly look let's sit down kind of scrap scrap with their what you're doing just make it absolutely clear that they have an absolute right so you know what we talked before about that may language there's no reason why that should be out of there if it if they have an absolute right to requested we should say that the affidavit is a hold on on any any material that does claim until they have the opportunity to to have it lifted and and then just basically make it clear that they have a right to return and and frankly I would take I would take restitution language at all together and less you would have a separate bill or or do something altogether different outside here that deals with somebody who sells stolen property which is a bigger deal but I think we can I think we can fix it but I think timing probably need to sort of start over again I think bill writer who I don't think restitution is ever been it's been getting the property back has always been the point I always blame it on brat myself so that's what I would. Because we have Scott Fink Byner come. To the table Mr to. Yeah. I come on. Then for yourself for the record. I mean I would just. Ask you to start with. Senator Clark said is intention was the people that are paid to get their stuff back. And I mean what I read line twenty four the current law it looks to me like the law says if you got their stuff you got to give it back to. My name is Scott fake madam thank you guys let me speak the there's a larger problem with this this thing up there's a larger problem than just the purchasing of the property back there's actually an incentive within the pawn shops to purchase stolen property because you could actually get items cheaper from known fees that you will get from a person that's a legitimate seller so when they purchase that item now. They have nothing to lose. And I had to say in a twenty five year old person that suspected building on may eighth rides up on a bicycle with a five thousand dollar diamond ring. They know that diamond ring is not theirs and they by the way they may give the rightful owner of a thousand dollars for that rain the person that they suspected think they'll give five hundred increasing their profit margin and they have nothing to lose. So. Really there needs to be skin in the game for the pawn shops also so a disincentive to purchase stolen property in the first place just like you and I have if we were to do it. so the full restitution. Would be a disincentive if they had if they wanted to move something quickly and get out of their shop they suspected was stolen. They could move it quickly thank you can trace it back to that shop where they purchased it. In which when they sold it. See that way they would have a disincentive in the first place to ever get it to ever take it in. That makes sense senator garner and then Senator Stubblefield thank you so that is what you wanna do you wanna make the pawn shop take it back I see but paid the original owner money for the grassy to problem with that one. I understand what you're saying about pawn shops could be cursed about that FCRA good but I know some pawn shop owner they're good guys and they get burned. By people a tanker slid gently selling something and now they have the right to check out they are lost that money there incentive because if you come back to that property on the current code they have to give it back to you and let you take it to court which this law currently allows so that that's a big problem now that the writing checks to that in your disincentive files and so my who do not know only know by name still a good email is stolen we can understand that they don't know they're buying that so you put a big kitchen to in the market especially for guys who might be in a tight spot it might not look like the best character but our legitimacy on the goods I'm a pawn shop owner I want to take a big risk on that because I'd be terrified about selling that thing you have to pay it back so that's what you're trying to do that's a completely different kind of set of issues and that that makes it much more. Maddox my opinion on this bill. Okay Senator Stubblefield in Senator Ballinger says you're recognized thank you Mr chairman one of the current rules for pawn shops when it comes to purchasing these items. there any. Any rules that they have to vote by mail and under current law they do have to provide a serial numbers to a a company called leads online and which law enforcement's able to check in run for large items like ATVs or anything larger trailer or something has a vin number but as far as bringing in a production area was a lady lives in our counties around seventy years old please also security she has no money she can afford to hire her your done are you on lawnmower is stolen they take that long more up there she has original receipts with the serial numbers well if the pawn shops don't run home in time or in a timely manner and law enforcement doesn't catch them the system she's lost to that lawn mower her only recourse to get it back it's going to be through the the court system the the pawn shop has nothing to lose I have no penalty whatsoever there's nothing that requires him to keep that property for a certain period of time after the not that I'm aware I mean they can get one hour so that the next yes as far as now firearms I believe may have a different. Time limit on those you have to do certain things with federally the firearms and I'm not sure the time on those but. Any other item you know they can be I've watched people seldom and hit the desk when they would come in there and I haven't even put him on the shelf she has somebody walks in and sees them and purchases on. So. Senator Sturch will in answer to your question when I was on the quorum court before leads online of my memory is that the pawn shops had to turn in a list of I think day to local law enforcement and local law enforcement was supposed to. The concern for the they had the time or not we're supposed to look at their list of stolen goods reported from burglaries except for and and see if any of those things were located there and I would I would disagree with Scott that they do have skin in the game because if they if they paid for it. Of and then they then they lose it of the House there there may be some bad actors I'm not disagreeing with that but I mean if if somebody brings you an item no matter what the value may be is there may be an incentive to take it I'm but but there's also a disincentive because of if law enforcement comes in and you paid twenty five dollars you paid five hundred dollars for if if it's stolen and they show the stolen on then you would lose but we had the lady testified here last time we present this bill of and I've seen this happen headed had an expensive bicycle easily identifiable and she was not able to get it back any other way than to pay for. but again that's supposed to be already in the law it appears. Thank you senator Ballinger you're recognized. Thank you Mr so. Going back to the issue of restitution that immediately in my head when I read this I think of restitution meaning being paid what the what the pawn shop receipt and and sold it for at. My E. my thinking or. Maybe even worse being paid what what was paid what the pawn shop paid for right so what I would say is that it even if what we're wanting to do is make sure that we do what we what you're talking about doing and make you wear full restitution so if you paid twenty five hundred dollars for the rain instead of getting paid two hundred fifty dollars the pawn shop paid for or a thousand dollars to the project sold for you get paid the full twenty five hundred dollars that you pay for and that may be held be interpreted but I but like that's not immediately where I went to so what I would probably say is even if you're wanting to do that though you probably probably need to clarify the full beautiful restitution of the value of it well aware of the purchase price or you know clarify what we mean by restitution here it's about being restored and made a hole that for the for the original owner not not being paid what what was paid out so. That probably needs to be amended but I totally get now what what we'll talk about any restriction yes. Any other questions. Senator Clark what's your pleasure all without objection of blood like full bill down and try again. Okay. This that's proved to you want another one yes of the next one as far as getting witnesses out of here that have traveled here of. Is it because we've got a for and against is going to be SP five thirteen. SP five thirteen. if I made sure I would like to bring Paul Chapman who signed up to testify for the bill I'd like to bring him up to help present the bill okay Mr come on a state your name for the record Senator Clark you're recognized to explain Senate bill five thirteen with your witness however you like. Of five thirteen is the third incarnation of this bill ran one of a driver's license bill of last session that went all the way through the house floor of and filed think it's S. B. one ninety this time uh and serve amended it I just re filed SB five thirteen of the purpose is to. Of the two people of that are trying to get back on their feet and do the right thing from. Continually be bogged down of by and not being of I have a license of. And also at the same time not taking tools away from our judges that they need of I believe of that the judge's or at least neutral on this bill they're certainly not signed up that's why they but I believe I heard that they were neutral with five thirteen and the of full load of Mr chairman tell you more about it. Okay Mr chairman again state your name for the record you're recognized names called Chapman I work for an organization called restore hope we provide a model and some technology to communities that are interested in reducing incarceration and the need for foster care. we've operate in the Fort Smith area we've launched what we call alliances which are coalitions in White County in Crawford County and in two weeks launcher in Pulaski County. In our model we work with the judges with parole probation officers with the DCFS case workers shelters to identify families who are in crisis many of our clients in fact most of our clients have been involved in the justice system at least a misdemeanor level seventy five percent of all of our clients needs counties have made incarcerated in jail or prison before. And and I will tell you that In our work within district courts we work with the judges and the courts to identify individuals who are stuck seemingly they have suspended driver's license and we help them and resolve those issues affectively and try to get them off of the docket and moving on from what we call our model is a crisis career model so it's a collaboration of community providers would help someone satisfy outstanding legal issues get stable and then take advantage of training opportunities and jobs in the in the community there in I will tell you outcomes or in Crawford County in just about six months worth of working a we've on boarded over a hundred families hearsay of forty two percent impact to full time employment with that group and Sebastian County we've been operating there for a number of years there's been a very positive impact to reunification sites for families who have had children in foster care employment and packs Education impacts and in quite County we are nearing about two hundred and fifty families they are currently receiving collaborative care with the local hospitals mental health and an out of court Sir so. It's going to the scope of our work what I want to talk to you about today was something that we notice a few years ago with the server technology tracks. The the inputs in the outcomes is that a significant number of individuals in Arkansas that are and justice system and can't get free you have a suspended driver's license. What we found with over one hundred R. I'm sorry over one thousand returning parolees that were in a in a technical violator program a significant number of the Arkansans that are incarcerated here or do so because they were violated technically they were out didn't commit no crime could meet the needs are re incarcerated sixty seven percent of high risk to to receipt of eight individuals coming back at least one District Court issue suspending a driver's license thirty percent of the population had two or more. suspensions and so one of the things that we do to support communities we have court resolution team that supports it community by in partnership with driver control we run a report and give that back to the originating case manager. And then we help that individual in that case manager resolve those issues successfully pay the fees and fines get the warrants taking away are resolved and we do that in cooperation with the judges so I'm in support of this bill which would provide I think a proper incentives for an individual to resolve their outstanding issues so take responsibility and allow them and sent them if you will come to court many of our clients are poor and and they're afraid to show up because they're afraid of being put in jail and this would also give tools to judges to be able to issue a temporary driver's license therefore if someone can't resolve their outstanding issue or they have multiple courts that they have an issue in a speeding ticket tags in another County then the judge could allow them to drive to certain locations prosocial locations legally. as you know most places in Arkansas do not have public transportation. Yeah we do want of folks on parole. to pay the parole fees to get a job take care of their kids and if they don't have transportation or they don't have a driver's license it starts to become very hard for them to do that and get themselves out so I I think this would start to provide courts and communities and the individuals that are in trouble they have a suspended driver's licenses would start to provide some incentives for them to resolve those issues. Okay. Okay question Sir. Senator Rapert you're recognized. Does this involve words or anything in this. would. Open judges up to. The illegal or undocumented I guess is the proper term now. there was something similar done as far as issuing a temporary driver's license it was Done by then representative Clark I believe in twenty fifteen twenty sixteen passed a bill that I filed the pro probation office actually issue a temporary driver's license so ACC has been doing this for a number of years been doing it to undocumented. I am not aware of any undocumented a quick question is are we gonna be issuing licenses to illegal or undocumented people. Which is being done some states I don't know is Arkansas is this program will allow this to be done in Arkansas. SunTrust the intention and I can't tell you. That it's that it's written tight enough to answer your question the intention is to issue a temporary restricted license to someone who already has a license a restricted license in place of their normal license where you could be in a rule state recognizing that you need the ability to get to work we may not let you drive anywhere else it's not the to give somebody a license who doesn't have okay. Thank you. Yeah that's I mean that's what the bill is all about is. it also and it doesn't mandate that they do that but it gives the judges the ability to do that it does mandate that if somebody does show up for court of and can't pay of that before you take their driver's license away or restricted that you have to go down the list of where they can truly pay or not and not just take their driver's license away if they can't pay the in it goes there's several times if you don't show up of their there are. Of. The. Consequences of so again we we try to recognize that the judges do need to be able to handle scofflaws and those who just don't do what they're supposed to do and also at the same time we need to be able to help people get back in to society who end up with multiple driving without a license because they have to get to work or they have to take pick up the kids from school or go get groceries or whatever because and I was also informed that we have lots of our convicted felons moved to little rock when they get out of prison because we have a transportation system. that you you don't have it legal or. or press will or or Johnson because if you live on those places you've got a drive of or you're you're not gonna have a job so what we're trying to strike a balance as well as we can. Okay. Any other questions. In a if people support this bill public. Okay do we have anyone here to speak for against the bill. Last. What's that. Part time chairman I'd like to speak for the bill but we have so much begins the problem code okay. Scott Bradley are you here you want to speak on the bill. State. He would push your button for your Mike up close state your name for the record and you're recognized. Yes Sir my name's Scott Bradley on the Director of the Arkansas sheriff's association and I guess I guess the reason insurers were opposed is suspending someone's license is obviously a tool that we use to try to get him to come back and take care of their business and I understand that you've done some work on it is at the end it's been here I have some good changes were not opposed to people receiving help and taking care of their business appreciate the work that you do and. I guess opposition is that were certain things we have to do we have to have insurance and a lot of don't carry the insurance they'll get a ticket and I'll come back and they pay the ticket or they get other things they may be speeding or driving a car that's not legal or it is road into a lot of different issues that they get tickets for that they might not come back to court for and I think that I think that They've been issued citation may know when to come or they've been to court and been set up on a payment plan. And not taking care of it I do know there are the judges do help I know upon occasion they do permit people to get a will work with you know to drive back and forth to work until they can get their license back in order I just know that some read the bill it went on it listed a lot of things that they would be able to go to drive to back and forth so that really suspended driver's license I think going back and forth to work is important form and and but I think the opposition is just it's a tool that used and I think it's an important tool to get them to some incentive to come back and take care of their business so that's opposition on this bill Senator Clark K. we got any questions Sir. All right thank you for your comments anybody else here that everyone speak for against the bill. Okay let's do it after a motion and senator garner at. Senator Clark you wanna close for your bill of wood and I think Mr Chapman you may want to respond to a couple things that Mr Bradley had to say. And they're all close thank you and I do I do want to say that we work very closely with law enforcement every one of our counties and and public safety and adherence to the poll is something that we're seeking We do operate puts been called alternative sentencing or a community diversion program in partnership with several District Court judges judge Durcan White County and judge Baker in Crawford County and then more working on some in Sebastian County and the reason that that list is so long of things that you might be engaged in are allowed to travel to is because all of those things are actually good for the individual and so when those alternative sentencing programs or community diversion programs what is allowed by the judge and encouraged by the judge if the individual wants instead of doing community service or paying fees and fines say to go to the adult ed. And get a GED or go to the adult ed and get a job related corks and in Crawford County why we had a forty two percent impact on full time employment was because that's exactly what's happening at a judge Baker's court he sending them to Dr Debbie fall that said adult ed and they created a resource center. around this court and those individuals are finding jobs and then they pay their fines and fees and then they go on and and buy groceries they're paying taxes or taking care of their kids I don't have any idle time and so it's a it's a our target clients are those that without. Us doing something different are going to continue to perform as is they will bear stock they're breaking the law in small ways and some of them leading to very large waves and this is an intervention in partnership with the courts to be able to try to divert some and we've got statistics showing that that that diversions actually working for many years in a row so that that would be kind of the response to why all those things are things that we would want individuals today okay now we're not doing anything to close yes of. Would tell the committee I would tell the sheriffs and all law enforcement and the judges we have worked very hard not to open this up too much I understand a lot of time sometimes element that they work with of and we do too you have to apply tough law but I promise you that if somehow we have opened it up too far and I don't think it does I will be glad in the next session to come back and then tied it back up because again we we want we want people to follow the law but we also want to help people of get our lives back in order and to do that in Arkansas you've got to be able to draw. Okay you closing your bill is that you make a motion I make a motion to pass our second got a second senator garner any discussion the Committee senator garner you're recognized thing Mr don't like disagreeing with the sheriff association with this one I absolutely will. When I was in college. I. Or in a crosswalk at you a large campus somebody was walking across side stop in and take the last about not store deal went and got a ticket. I mis read the date I was going to appear is going paid to give you know all the dead broke leaving on the GI bill going to college by myself as a grown adult. I got some mail to my my licenses been suspended. Yeah my dad didn't live anywhere near me I was a grown man who served in military I was on my own and so I had to for two months either make the choice to go to school to get my education or to drive it legally. Guess which choice I made. Any day I could got busted during that time if something like this existed I would reach out to the court said I'm mis read the date I was supposed to appear please give me one the temporary license and I would have done if they made me pay a thousand dollar fee on top of the hundred dollar fee which took me months and months paying back as a broke college students. So I'm absolutely open to us looking at helping people out so we don't further do make specially in the state we don't have the option to go from point a to point B. unless you have a vehicle for the truly bad cases I'm happy to join Avenue we can suspended. But I can tell you my case this would help me out tremendously and I would have done the right thing it was simply a small mistake on my part that could compound into a larger issue so thank you for bringing this bill. Okay any other discussion members committed. We've got a motion and a second all in favor say aye All opposed. Motion carried president Senator Clark you got another one yes thank you thank you Mr thank you members of the committee of. I am trying to fund. SP five sixty. Five six zero Mr sure I would like to ask your permission to bring of Sylvester Smith up to help me present this bill. Come on a map. State your name for the record. Good afternoon Mr chairman Amos Sylvester Smith and I am here as a private attorney here in the great state of Arkansas all right Senator Clark you're recognized to explain Senate bill five sixteen will. We presented a nother of so what support your bill that of. completely was a very good bill that completely of. The re did civil asset forfeiture of in Arkansas this bill's very simple bill I actually work for the prosecutors and they basically wrote it in fact they did write it except for one little of peace at the end of and we're really not asking for much in this bill but some very important things I'll let of Sylvester twenty. So This process is part B. of what I like to call the bifurcated told totality of punishment that's associated with crimes especially drug crimes so part a is I'm I'm riding around in Senator Stubblefield struck and I get caught with the some some cocaine I I suffered the criminal consequence that's part a part B. is the state of Arkansas because Stubblefield is really cool laid back guy presumes that he had to know something about the criminal activity that I was engaging in in his truck and so they filed a civil suit against his truck. Now. Just like any other civil suit he gets Sir with the a complaint in a summons that someone says senator you got thirty days to file your answer to this complaint with your local circuit Clerk now here's the problem. The current statue has this little section it says Senator Stubblefield answer must be chronicled verified which the Supreme Court has determined to mean sworn under oath and from the presence of a notary well the paperwork to send a Stubblefield receipt didn't tell him that all the total was yet to file an answer within thirty days to defend himself and is in is a property so would ends up happening is up people like Senator Stubblefield often older people people who have don't know anything about the judicial process they take the paperwork for his word and the only file an answer sometime that answers hand written and so what the prosecutor turns are able to do is file a motion for what's called a default judgment say you lose via technicality because you didn't put your answer did not fully comply with the law. That really puts the state it makes them what I like to call an advantage to litigant and so I handle cases for landlords although we are all of the state of Arkansas every day of the week. None of my landlords get to say to the tenet that they're trying to evict Hey you need to your answer needs to be verified you need to have this heightened level of response now what we are able to do is to say if you don't respond within five days you're going to be evicted automatically but the state you have required us to give them notice of that and so we have to test or complete a three day notice this is if you don't respond to this this way you're going to be a victim and so just to resolve this issue to resolve any confusion the first thing that this does is it removes that requirement for verification so now puts the state on equal footing with the lid of the litigants we're all they get to the man of Senator Stubblefield as an answer that he felt some kind of response basis saying Hey this is my property I don't know anything about Sylvester Smith his boondoggle I was just trying to be a nice guy loan to fill in my truck the other thing that this does which I think is very important is it creates two pathways of responses and so Senator Stubblefield he gets a longer period to respond because he's the innocent what we call the innocent third party owner the other thing is the state has a higher burden of proof once they get him the court he gets his day in court they have to prove based upon a clear and convincing standard. That he knew or should have known that the property was being used for crime whereas when it comes to me the guy that's been charged because there's also open criminal case I they just have the simple preponderance of the evidence standard which means it's more likely than not that I was doing what they have accused me of doing with the property the final thing that this statute does is it might of what this bill skews me that it does is it modifies the uses for these drug funds and adds the opportunity for prosecutors to give a thousand dollar grant or contribution anytime a law enforcement officer dies in their jurisdiction and so these law enforcement officers were card they put themselves at risk my father ran a drug task force and in south Arkansas for many years I know the risk they take and so it just gives them one more pathway to get some immediate help for their families once we lose one of our officers and so with that Mister chairman if it's appropriate I take any questions Senator Stubblefield you're recognized for a question. Thank you shares this my name was invoked multiple times. Being involved in a criminal situation. This bill really this sounds familiar Senator Clark is this in response to the lady removing the notary requirement. Yes and it also in addition to removing the notary requirement and that we the state must have clear and convincing evidence that a third party. Of has any knowledge it also the one thing we looked at is it also changes they have forty five days with thirty days to answer okay thank you Mr chairman. And the question members the committee. And if I may add Committee Mr the artist so that all that the prosecutors had written except for one part the part we added was for the fallen officer. Is there anybody here to speak for against. Come right. If you state your name for the record you're recognized. The bride director the Arkansas state police is really not in opposition I had a chance to meet with the Sylvester for the the hearing today in the part that they and we greatly appreciate that for law enforcement just for point of clarification where it talks about a drug fund our concern was is to make sure it's a state drug funded several federal because if not you will violate the equitable sharing act the federal government so that would be the the only proposed changes in words in line fifteen on page four moneys the drug control fund if you do that under state law that would be fine but if you did it using federal seizure money you would be in violation of the equal sharing. And then the other question I had was a for these law enforcement officers for in the line of duty. Or is it just a police officer who dies so if it is in the line of duty you might wanna and were you dies put in the line of duty. you know we're we're forced the legislature and the governor we increased it now a foster skill line of duty and I used to be five hundred dollars we got it to five thousand dollars now but that that's the only thing I appreciate them thinking about law enforcement in this but those are just the two points of clarification okay. Senator Clark first yeah if you wanna respond at the center so up to two things first of all I would say with regard to the issue of the fund I don't believe that this bill requires any amending because my understanding is that there are two categories of funds that these prosecutors have and they they don't co mingle state and federal monies and so that there's a separate fund for the state money separate fund for the federal money and so to the extent that that there are bills funds are not co mingle this is a state statute in the state statute cannot trump federal law and so as long as the federal law says you can't use these dollars or a federal statute says you can't use those dollars in their funds for these purposes this what could only apply to the state funds in the state dollars to the second issue I would remind you that I sit on the Arkansas state claims commission and that sitting there I I I hear these cases about when officer killed in the line of duty what constitutes lines of duty and that can be respect tax specific kind of circumstance imagine offices sit in the car I has a heart attack and so the way that we drafted this is it leaves total discretion to these individual prosecutors there some of the best lawyers in the state and we trust them to make these determinations as to when it's appropriate to utilize this opportunity that you would be granting them it doesn't require them to do anything. I guess I would just ask you I mean it I thank. You really don't have a choice it in this I mean any any widow can say or or that. The amount my husband died period you know he may have been ninety five years old. And the law says that their eligible. This. First if I may Mister of because of do this all the time as far as and but moneys in the drug control fund that question line fifteen that's all that's the way the current laws written we haven't changed anything there I mean if a ward need to be added to already need to be added and I'd be glad that it but but it that's not under one so we didn't change anything of but it says including moneys in the drug control fund shall only be used for law enforcement and prosecutorial purposes and then we've added including without limitation to provide a grant up to one thousand dollars to the family of a law enforcement officer who does in the prosecuting attorney's jurisdiction. it was our intention to write that were that may be done not shall be done. I'm not an attorney so. A. The the and whether it be in the line of duty or as well as us Lester said whether the bill or attack. A heart attack in the car I would leave that up to local discretion but it It Urals bill amount of current brown speak again and I do think you have some flexibility because you say up to one thousand dollars so certainly you can say well why don't you know twenty five dollars or twenty five hundred fifty dollars whatever right you want to comment on that. Thank you Mr chairman I may take just for clarity you know support what they're trying to do you know there is in the line of duty I know that class there's certain things to classify what is the line of duty death I mean the only other concern you know we've had officers I remember North Little Rock officer who got called covid and he he died in the line of duty because they were able to track it back to where you know it is the changes that he called COVID and during the scope of his duties you know the other part is if you know what this is a family could apply for any reason it I guess it would be up to the prosecutor those are just a point of clarification you know that we wanted iron out again I thank you for bringing this bill I'm not trying to give it a minute I just want to point out those points for clarification to make it easier for the prosecutors to make that type of determination sure. Okay and. Anything else for come right of also got Mr McMahon from the prosecutors if you wanna come the table on. Thank you Mr chairman about me with prosecutors Association and I had actually planned on speaking on this bill but I will I would make it a one comment if there is a decision to make any kind of an amendment to address that specific issue if there's not then I'm obviously we have no problems with the bill as as Senator Clark said we wrote most of it and certainly support the last provision and what that's attempting to do but if there are any specific amendments that are made to address with the colonel had suggested that I might also suggest taking out the word grants and using the word contribution because to me when you put the grand and they're it implies there some type of a grant process that you have to go through whether it be an application or the ward process I don't think that's which are intending to do there so again I'm perfectly fine with the way it's written right now there's no reason to amended on that account but if you do decide to minute in any other way I might suggest that that might tighten it up a little bit with regard to that in terms of process but like you said that's not a problem that would make a speak against it by any means we think that's a that's a good idea in in terms of Senator Hendren comments in if you minute to be line of duty I mean that we need specified otherwise I think it would be a would would be open to the prosecutor for any type of interpretation to any death in the jurisdiction so those are just my comments not in opposition to the bill by any means but just if we're going to clarify that we might want to clarify that way as well and I'll be happy to try to answer any questions we're gonna questions. All right. Senator you senator Clark you again it sounds like there's some tweaks if you wanna make him or you might wanna make on the other end or you can just leave it that's kind of your your call Mr The. Our intention. What is the. No argue with prosecutors wants a longer more time of but our intention was to give them complete freedom. Of your the and whether they require somebody. The under the the way this is written for the required somebody to go through a process cinnamon email but they just decided to do that that would be entirely up to them we're leaving that completely to their discretion I thought the colonel brought made an excellent point he he talked about how they traced this officers this. To be in the line of duty with COVID under this if we don't change anything you don't have to the I mean think about all these officers what other people stated home and and had various reasons for not working they've been out there every day running into whoever they run into putting their lives on the line and yet one more way of and so again I'm. If the committee would lock it. Of amended I am happy to amend it otherwise I'm happy with the way it is okay to have anybody else to speak for against the bill. So Sir Clark if you close for the I'm closer than I would I make a motion to pass got a motion Senator Clark. Sir second second senator garner any discussion. All in favor of the motion say aye. New post motions carry. Thank you Mr thank you members of the committee of Senate bill five sixty one. And I'm going to have someone from the CFS to point fingers at each other here with your permission Mister chair to come help me present the bill twice initial Martin director of DCFS. Okay if you state your name for the record members were on Senate bill five sixty one. That. Good evening Mr Martin on the Director of the Division of Children and Family Services SP five sixty one this bill provides an offender whose names on the child maltreatment registry for an offense that constitute severe maltreatment as defined by the child maltreatment act will permanently remain on the registry if the offender is convicted of a criminal offense related to the maltreatment currently there is a permanent bar to removal if the offender pleads guilty pleads no contest or is convicted of a criminal crime even if maltreatment is neglect or a less severe offense offense and what you may know is most of our true maltreatment findings are related to substance abuse related ten ACT lacked so even if the offender goes to treatment maybe this is five ten years later has had re have if they're criminal offense was related to substance abuse and related to their child maltreatment they are still required to remain on the central registry so this change would only mean that if you are convicted of a crime related to the city or not treatment there's a permanent bar from coming off the central registry and I'm happy to take questions. We have any questions. Is there anybody else here to speak on this bill. Sir Clark anything that I do not. The clothes for the bill I'm close make a motion to pass. A motion the second by Senator Stubblefield any discussion all in favor say aye motion carried youth pastor bill. Yes. Is there anyone here of for to own SP one sixty seven. S. B. one sixty seven we have anybody here. No okay signed up I had somebody who wanted to help present that bill and they're not here then we we will present. Okay that all you have center that's all I've got Mr. I believe Senator Garner has. Senator Garner what bill are we looking at let's do S. B. two eighty four and then SP twenty nine they're similar but I think better for cover its B. two eighty four first. SPT two eighty four. Sardar you're recognized president SB two eighty four thank Mr SP two eighty four is about giving the ultimate punishment to those who her sexual abuse the most innocent among us historically United States low rate has recognized the need to have capital punishment for the truly works the worst as far as hurting children. The states have laws on the books of allow capital rate punishment. Unfortunately this frame court in two thousand eighteen and NARAL five to four decision the card it was unconstitutional to allow capital punishment for rape. To the facts of that case the Kenny versus Louisiana. Patrick o'neill Kennedy a man from Harvey Louisiana was sent to death after being convicted of raping and sodomizing his eight year old stepdaughter. The rape taking place on March nineteen ninety eight was uncommonly brutal. For the victims' per Nerium former John opening tour anal opening toward Regina on the internal such as separate it partially from a cervix allowed her **** to protrude into her ****. Instance of surgery was needed to require her to live. That decision was heavily criticized at a time in fact it was during the campaign of both senator John McCain and former president Obama they both brutally asking they both criticized that ruling saying that they should law should be on the books. To be blunt it was a terrible decision by the court and the one I'm directly taking on with this law under new make up the Supreme Court and realities of how we have a new we have a new kind of precedent. I think we can challenge that ruling Noel twenty overtake it what this bill does increase capital offense of rape. Most of this long bill should clean up language to make sure we put in the code that we have this but that really true me to this can be found on page twenty three or spells out the offense. The main part is to have capital rape is if the criminal engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activities with a person who is less than fourteen years old and that calls or threatened to call serious physical injury to the victim. We also added felony capital rate for those who were further cyber crime. We added those who seller by children the rate. And we added those who use a deadly weapon during the rate and those have been pretty was convicted of similar rate. If the van is under eighteen years old at the time they me given death I'm sure they are over eighteen at the time they can be given the death penalty or life without parole. If they're under they can be given life imprisonment without possibility roll parole after thirty years with that I will take any questions. Questions from the committee. Say none is there anyone here to speak for against the bill. Mr rose one. Rosenzweig Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers of first US senator garner is absolutely accurate that this bill would unconstitutional under Kennedy versus Louisiana and it's unconstitutional for a reason because of the The Supreme Court held as hell that except in cases involving treason which almost always or worse or more time there we do not give the death penalty when someone doesn't die so the Supreme Court held in committee that it was unconstitutional well let's say they have held up the wires that it was constitutional their problems there will be problems here obviously there are aggravated cases but there are plenty of cases where an allegation of rape is made for someone is innocent you see this in divorces and custody disputes all of the time where a a. Small child is induced by one party to claim that the father or the stepfather or the mother's brother or someone had done something under Arkansas law there is no require that there be physical injury this state this statute does proposed statute doesn't require physical injury it requires nearly. A claim of threats of physical injury there is no requirement under Arkansas law for rape for corroboration of any sort there's no requirement for physical cooperation is just if if someone says something in a jury chooses to believe it Addison that is sufficient as long as they can be quoted as saying the magic words this so you were going to run into those problems and you and if you make it a capital offense you can multiply those problems by. By by some number of secondly secondly let's let's talk about let's talk about the evil doer who actually has rating child not just falsely accused but who has raped a child if you say if you say you're gonna be executed anyway whether you know if the person or whether the person lives or not what is the motivation to let the person let. There is not. So for all these reasons I would suggest I would suggest that this bill should be rejected. Questions from the committee. Stubblefield. Well what I'm going to ask a question but I will thank you Mr chairman so what's road where you're saying while this individual is. It is a. Intentionally raping the victim he's going to think about. What's going to happen to him if he gets call. He's worried about the may be put to death. He may not be put to death now. Under current law under under current law you can not be sentenced to death if a if a if you haven't killed the person who your you what I'm saying though you make it sound like it's system this bill would incentivize the perpetrator. You're going to kill the victim that's that's the way I think I think that's where you can look at it I mean let's let's talk let's talk realistically if you if if the. If you are going to get the death sentence even though you did not kill someone and you may be able I'm I'm talking about a person may be able the thank you thanks well if I kill this child if I kill this person that maybe they can't make the case on me. Which by if you leave the if you leave the. The victim alive. And you're going to get death anyway this may incentivize the person to kill. to kill the victim I mean I I was you know it it's it's hard to it's it's hard to put yourself in the position of someone like that but that's but if you look at it logically speaking if you if you have give yourself a better chance of winning. Of a beating the cakes are by that I mean that's not the basis for I'm just pointing this out that's not the basis for my opposition based opposition is unconstitutional but secondly the at the allegations of child sexual abuse are are being I think everyone has an knows someone who's who's been falsely accused of that generally coming out of some sort of domestic. Discord and out of a divorce and you're gonna you're gonna create you're gonna make capital cases out of out of so many of these I think that is a bad bad mistake. Other questions from the committee. Mr Rosenzweig I have a great deal of respect for you can always listen. Are you suggesting that on page twenty three line twenty four. That if we move removes or threatens to call is that this is a much better bill. It would it would. It would meet one of the objections I have to I think I I think there are a million reasons why the bill should be rejected but but the if you're. You're rule requiring. At least under those circumstances you would recall be requiring that there be a serious physical injury but if I remember your argument it was that it was unconstitutional but if. If we took out or if it would call serious but but but but. It was unconstitutional because it says or threatens to call what that would not be Ann Cornwell no is right now it's unconstitutional because no death would have occurred that's that's why some constitutional under Kennedy what I am pointing out is this is where I pointed out there is a separate issue which is under Arkansas law in under this statute. You you can commit one can commit rate even though or be convicted of rape even though there is literally no physical corroboration. Of the alleged right just that a a a person can be quoted as saying this person did this to me he inserted at this particular body part into my particular body part and I didn't want him to do that is sufficient their needs needs to be no proof that physical proof that such ever occurs no DNA is necessary no requirement that there be some any sort of physical scarring manifestation in other words just purely someone's war and and this by like having the words or threatens physical injury that bad to me that you can make it a capital offense even though there would not be any actual physical and. That's that's not a that's not a constitutional issue it's a statutory. application issue. Six hundred. So to be clear you're saying that. Someone can be convicted of under this statute under from the rate of rate with nothing but he said she said scenario and get the death penalty that's correct. With no physical evidence no that that that is correct there is no there is no physical evidence required for a conviction rate under current Arkansas law and no requirement for physical harm under this just threaded that this the this it just would you give someone said I feared for my life and this happened in someone's eligible for the death penalty well well yes well for instance if you with regard to a child with regard to a child there's no of required just merely the age difference is is sufficient no now if you're talking an adult there's a forcible compulsion aspect to it but this is not required in a in a child situation the the the forcible compulsion is essentially imputed by by the age difference but there is no requirement that there be any physical injury any physical manifestation of anything any physical proof of anything but merely someone's words now obviously you know senator senator garner read to the those the factual situation in the Kennedy case and that obviously that's a very your maddening poignant type of type situation but that's that's that's it one far end of the spectrum and the problem is in most cases most cases your way at the other end where it's just. Where it's just someone saying something and it it generally I think any of most people who are involved in the criminal justice system moves will tell you that most of these come out of a out of a domestic. Situation. So the situations that people called date rape or or someone's. Drug door given drugs that make them and able to give consent. With that qualifies a capital rate. Well being well under senator garner this bill it said the criteria to be under the act the under fourteen. Now they are the Supreme Court already held in many years ago in Coker versus Georgia prohibiting the death penalty for the rape of an adult that's been band is capital for. Half a century almost every coke arisen late seventies of there was that our little opening for what if it's not an adult and that's what the Kennedy case was in Kennedy entity held that no you could not do it now I think Senator Garner wants to if I he understanding correctly he wants to pass this in order to see it trying to get a case up to the US Supreme Court to see if the change in membership would change in which would change I I obviously I can't predict what the US Supreme Court would do I can tell you this that historically once the Supreme Court has banned a particular thing as being in violation of the eighth amendment they never turn around and go in the other direction but I can't obviously I'm I don't have any crystal ball with regard to that. Thank you. Any other questions from the committee. Seeing none thank you Mr rose what anyone else or to speak for against the bill. See non Senator Garner would you like to close for your bill yes Sir couple things one the Supreme Court before in the seventies struck down the death penalty. It was actually found unconstitutional for every death penalty case to be considered at all for murder otherwise in a court reverses self this is an unprecedented does it secondly I just fundamentally disagree that somehow. A rate this is going to try to kill somebody because they know the death toll is on the case I mean on the on the on the docket that's not how this works that you've already physically injured these people typically what happens is they right from. And then they try to kill them and they don't die because of evil Providence or incompetence or whatever you wanna call it. And in that case you cannot have the death penalty because that person's provide you know that little boy girl going to carry those ones those physical injuries for the paternity of their life and so. I'll be blunt which I just. I think we should be able to. Sadie's mom discussed in people that if you do this in Arkansas. We will. We will do the ultimate form of punishment against you to hold you accountable this is simply as I can say thank you uncle. Do you want to make a motion sir gore motion. Second from Senator Ballenger any discussion. C. none offer the motion signify by saying aye. All post. Motion carried congratulations centers are you about your bill. You're one of the bill Sir Garner yes Sir just another little death penalty bill. What you are. It's similar to SB two eighty four and SB twenty nine is the I'm sorry I'm sorry to my present state as between nine. We have a handout for US B. twenty nine. If I can Mr chairman I wanna say thank you to I will send our staff actively emailed the wrong person and I felt bad about it so you can't say that public. You're recognized under guard present as between a Mr this is similar to the this deal we just ran we create capital offense for trafficking fentanyl has been you know fit knows the killer that has become more more of a problem in our state this drug is extremely dangerous that is many many more times likely to cause death in the worst drugs we have in the state like math when cocaine this is a super drug need to see the difference. Let me show you real quick. You look here you can see on the right the amount of heroin it takes to kill somebody. On the left is the amount of federal it takes kill somebody. This is thirty times as likely to kill somebody so thirty grams a pair one Michael milligrams will kill somebody three milligram doses of fentanyl is enough to kill the average size male. The better idea this if your traffic any amount that is required to meet the offense in this bill two hundred grams or more you do the math that means you could kill over sixty six thousand people with Deffenbaugh. This is being used in our drug communities because it's such a low amount requires you to get high that they're mixing with other drugs in order to make more money if you're selling a house so whatever here when you can add a little fit notice up the supply it's cheaper to do that unfortunately our drug dealers are pharmacists and they're adding too much we lease death and now people are actually taking federal purposely. Not realizing such a small amount can kill them. Consider Tom cotton put it fictional is a mess I'm weapon of mass destruction president trump has called for this to be done at the state level this bill is a real step to hold people accountable who are dealers of this death what's in this bill. We can see where it defies spent no home page eighteen. Another good thing we do in this bills we have been known to a lot of code similar to met the cocaine we had punishment system for manufacturing but no on page twenty one. But the big part of the bill is a definition is trafficking with a greater weight of two hundred grams of more we create the capital offense on page twenty salt six for trafficking fentanyl without take any questions. Questions from the committee. Senator Stubblefield. Thank you Mr chairman. You know every everything you senator garner is true because I I spent some time with congressman Westerman and the drugs confiscated on the border in two thousand and eighteen. And They confiscated not fitting all in that one year to kill United States three times over. So this is a very. It's it's really a terrorist drug. And is threatening our entire population because truly is synthetic one the spring the other drugs with nobody knows how much of this drug you're actually consuming and nobody knows how much it takes to kill so um. I agree with everything set has one no I support the bill thank you as you said I mean. This is becoming more mop more province cartels and other industries are sitting is from either Mexico or coming from China and some cases and and like any kind of drug entrepreneurship whenever you can make more money to get people out of supply you're going to use that into anagrams or more is it substantial amount of the stroke I mean it's it's not you have a little dime bag is a substantial amount in order to meet this criteria. Senator Garner yes Sir of I appreciate what you're trying to do but course. Capitol is serious of do you have any body of from law enforcement or drug task force anywhere anyone to testify as to why this. To back up this being a capital offense no Sir how the handles I handed you are had staffing issues me is actually John McCain no day he's. A documentary on Netflix called the pharmacist and his son was taken away from us due to drug trafficking another woman I was with him she talks about her son was taken too early because of this it's it's becoming more more of an issue that we need to address but I have not discussed it with any of those entities. Senator Stubblefield. Thank you Mr chairman so as soon is there any of the state to past any similar legislation off top of my head I don't know I know the federal there was plenty of litigation are to me legislation many different bills following this Senator kat had a few NO center our president trump talked about a lot but I couldn't point to any specific other states off top of my head and I will assume this bill will be deemed unconstitutional absolutely. Thank you Mr. We say that. It will be challenged as unconstitutional this clarify that. Is there anyone here test five four against. Mr rose's wife. Of the Again the US Supreme Court has held that when no death that occurs. The death penalty is unconstitutional under the eighth amendment In that regard in reference to something that senator garner said in nineteen seventy two the R. U. S. Supreme Court did not abolish the death penalty in the Fuhrman case what they did was they held that all the this state systems for applying the death penalty were unconstitutional as being arbitrary and capricious and invited the stage to make them non arbitrary non completions and change procedures and Arkansas was among the states that did so in nineteen seventy six and number for the the up held the number of them but they did not abolish the death penalty per se nineteen seventy two the again hi I think this would be on Concord be clearly on health care held unconstitutional under under the Kennedy case I will also point out that trafficking under the statute a person engaged in trafficking if he possesses possesses with the purpose to deliver delivers or manufactures a controlled substance by aggregate weight including an adulterant or dial in in the following amounts and then two hundred two hundred grams for what senator Garner wants to do in other words you under this you get the death penalty if you just have possession of it of a certain amount or if it's planted on you or planted in your house anything would be diluted with whatever they dilute things where again this is This is dangerously subject to abuse and making capital cases out of a bunch of things wait that should not should not be considered capital cases and will and this will almost certainly be declared unconstitutional if anyone tries to make a capital offense. Under. Stubblefield under federal under the US constitution is constitution. Was was this power delegated to the federal government by the U. S. constitution or was a delegated to the states okay the eighth of the United States Supreme Court has held that that the death penalty can be in some cases cruel and unusual punishment depending on what the offense is under the eighth amendment the of the eighth amendment has has been held to be fully incorporated to the states under the Ford pick up by the fourteenth amendment which was passed at the end of the civil war. About the tenth amendment. Well the Fourteenth Amendment of the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted after the tenth amendment what were what were the stage what powers for the stage given of the tension. But the palette of the states were given flowers under the tenth amendment but the Fourteenth Amendment what we're going to start on the road right of. Whatever was not delegated specifically to the federal government delegation federal government but in the Fourteenth Amendment which with to the extent that you know it is well established judicial jurisprudence that a subsequent enactment to the extent that of it to him and that when scanned out be reconciled the subsequent enactment controls and there is a. Decades and decades long history of the United States Supreme Court holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applied applies to the bill of rights to the states the eighth amendment as part of the bill of rights. And it in other words the states are bound by the eighth amendment and the U. S. Supreme Court has held that certain types of certain punishments are cruel or unusual punishments is barred by the by the eighth amendment one of those is the death penalty for support for a situation where where the person did not or the a death did not occur. I'm. Would you agree that the bill of rights are actually restrictions placed on the government by the citizens. The bill of rights restrictions placed on the government and one by this section one of the restrictions placed on the government is that the government cannot impose crueler on unit are cruel or unusual punishments that's what that is what the the that is a restriction on the guy on the government and the US Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment pastors right after the civil war Iran has it has held that that applies those prohibitions to the states. Right I'm just tell you what it is I mean it and I've been that's it that's it is and it's and it is not they're not going back and saying it's not incorporated I think yours is the bill of rights to not give the government the power to determine the limits of people's rights. That. Where are I'm not sure I'm following you the bill of rights do not give the government the power to determine or limit the people's rights. Only the third amendment has an exemption. The rest of the government the power to do anything regarding. They made it the right of that government the governor the the okay the bill of rights when it was passed when it was enacted the seventeen nineties the eighth amendment prohibited these prohibited the the federal government from imposing cruel and unusual punishments the the US Supreme Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment then I applied that apply that those prohibitions to the states and the course the question is what is a cruel or unusual punishment and the U. S. Supreme Court has held and the number of things or cruel and unusual punishments one is Room one that doesn't involve death is removing citizenship from a natural born citizen you can be naturalized someone if they've or or they if they were a naturalized citizen but the eighth amendment prohibits the government from since issued since you're a citizen have you were you're a natural born citizen you the year citizenship cannot be taken away that is survived that would be a violation of the eighth amendment and and the US Supreme Court held in Coker that you couldn't you couldn't a give the death penalty on under the eighth amendment that it was cruel and unusual to give the death penalty for the rape of an adult they extended that in candidacy to the rape of a child here you're even here you're talking about something. You're talking about giving the death penalty for drug possession. Not even selling it possessing over certain amount. It's clear a no there's no way that that's not going to be declared unconstitutional no way in the world. Any other questions from the committee. Hearing none thank you Mr rose for. Anyone else certify for against. Seeing none. Senator Garner. I will agree that Mr Rosenstein did not right to fourteen Amendment I'll agree with that. Hello. Motion do pass. Motion to pass from Senator Garner. No. Of most fails due to the lack of a second Senator Ballinger. You can you can. You can run a second time anyway but. Ballinger what you wrote all right let's start off with the and fourteen eighty seven. So Senator Gilmore aye figure on this because it's it's legal and yeah he's a good Senator but not all the smarts of. This is the one that deals with the the governors executive order on protection from unity for liability we talked about today the Committee this is actually what codified that. And so the one thing that a that have a lot of discussion is the issue about whether or not it the inclusion of the of the guidelines and there's a question about whether including the guidelines actually provide more protection less protection I think that in all the terms but we talk to nobody's a hundred percent sure so you know at this point the plan is to discuss before with language as as it is in order to to provide some protection for our business owners. If and when the governors The executive order is no longer effective. Happy answering questions questions from the committee. Hearing none is there anyone here to speak for against the bill. Seeing none. Senator Ballinger would your clothes your bill I AM close and I make a motion to pass. Thank you for Senator Stubblefield any discussions you're not open motion signify by saying aye hi All opposed motion carried. No that's great well I stated the so it it actually you know I've not a hundred percent sure that the court wouldn't with argue that violates Amendment eighty but you know you never know these days congradulations Senator Ballinger you have passed your bill got something else yes so this is a bill that we we took up we thought we may be able to get done in five minutes an incident Gardner thing for my free number it is Senate bill thirteen seventy nine. Dealing with the adoption. this is so we brought a bill last time and and Senator Clark you're you you helped us sat down sat with adoption attorneys and what we did is we basically took out a lot of the adoption reform stuff just focused on a small part of trafficking and impasse basically old a lot of the the it basically took out a lot of the adoption reform stuff last time and pass something to to get it done but then represent Penzo sat down with the. With the adoption attorneys and worked on putting some as basically a reform package together what's happened is we've had in Arkansas where people have a have made a lot of money and I think abuse the system and essentially created a mechanism for people to to buy babies it's target primarily with the Marshallese population but it is it is one of the places so in short what this does this provides a mechanism for them to have a separate where parents will have an opportunity have separate counsel of the biological parents. there's exceptions for that so that the stepparent aunt uncle grandma grandpa or diverting that that wouldn't be a requirement if somebody doesn't speak English as a primary language submit have an interpreter that's provided to them which would be basically a court approved interpreter all those to be paid for by the by the adoptive parents the records exception for that as well and that you can you can waive the requirement to have an attorney waiver requirement for it to have a have an interpreter and through affidavit as long as you're you understand what you're doing. it requires a full accounting of the what is what actually the costs associated with the adoption what's up that's different so a lot of times when they make the money is by throwing a large number the for the expenses for the parents and and and frankly a lot of people willing to pay that because they're they're desperate to get the baby I think that's probably where where parents are adopting babies are going to find the savings is required that accounting will make it be the specific and I won't be adding costs in their by bad actors and then They have the ability of what as I said to refer to relinquish the rights and parents under this but there are limited exceptions and and methods to do that in particular from somebody whose English is not the primary language I'm happy to answer any questions. It is a greedy bill no office no no opposition to it and the really represented the did all the work on this to make it happen. Questions from the committee. Senator Garner. Explain the interpreter part to me again thanks distress do is common practice already years is playing like basis and the it is it is actually with some judges the they currently order room that have the interpreter but it's not something that is codified into law so what it would be is that if it's the if their primary language is an English that day be order to have an interpreter and but the exception would be if it's a step parent adoption of its adoption to the of the secondary consequently which aunt uncle grandma grandpa all. So so there are are exceptions to that but essentially provides for mechanism for somebody doesn't doesn't speak English as their primary language to make sure they know what they're getting into. Thank you. Other questions from the committee. Hearing none is there anyone here to testify for against the bill. Seeing none of Senator Ballinger would you like to close I'm close and I do make move do pass. The motion to pass circumcenter Stubblefield any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye hi All opposed motion carried congratulates Senator Ballinger you have passed your bill is there anything else I have one more thing that the committee is willing to take here it should be no big deal we've heard everybody else's so um house bill eleven sixty two. House bill eleven sixty two yes Sir. So what this bill does is it deals with a there's a mechanism Senator created document in Arkansas and the state planning a beneficiary deed. Typically you'll hear people refer to it as the four men stressed so a lot of people may have there there primary residence is about the only thing that they have left that they transfer on death and so do so through beneficiary D. well what this does is this provides for a mechanism that if someone does transfer of their homes and upon death then it basically removes the DHS ability to go back in and try to recoup DHS expenses from that we would visit with DHS about that there's actually really small amount of money and they're they're not doing much of this it's not required by federal law for us to include this is as part of the definition for a part of in the state and so it's just a mechanism to provide for somebody to be able to transfer their family home through beneficiary deed and not have it the. Be included as set up as part of the state for DHS. Questions from the committee. Senator Stubblefield no opposition no that meant it infers digested that's a lie can for them was to run the numbers and so they've they're they've after opposing it. Basically it. Any other questions from the committee. Hearing none anyone here to this fall for against the bill. Seeing none. Senator Ballinger would you like for free but I'm close I do move to pass a motion to pass. Circumcenter garner. Any discussion here no no for the motion signify by saying aye hi all post ocean Kerry can congratulations center Ballinger you have passed your bill. Of. When. Wednesday nine thirty once again you got the. You got to title the hardest working committee. The legislature and only had to do this once the sessions to