Judiciary Committee- House

Three. For those who are new to this committee these are technical corrections bills in all recognized representative Gazaway to. Give you an explanation record you're recognized. You madam chair committee as a manager indicated these are simply technical corrections bills these come from the code revision commission which I serve on along with the Speaker and Senator Ballinger and then we have some members from the bureau of legislative research that sit on that committee and Basically these bills are just of bills that come from the commission after the code has been reviewed to clarify I've been just very technical things in the code that may not have been corrected the initial bill as it was passed and harmonizes in some cases some language so that the code makes sense but other not substantive in nature they're purely technical and with that with the chairs permission I'd ask that we batch these bills in bottom up all at one time unless someone in with from a review has revealed one that needs to be separate from the batch. Members are there any bills that need to be pulled from this batch. I see that there are no bill no request for bills to be pulled you're ready to close for your bills. Thank you madam chair again really technical in nature. And I would make a motion to pass for the entire batch. Members we have a motion to do pass for senate bill four twenty one through Senate bill four forty two and then senate bill four ninety three. Are there any questions as to the motion. Your one vote will be for all of the bills all in favor say aye. Any opposed say no the motion carries bills have passed thank you representative Gazaway thank you manager thank you Committee. All right members let's turn to house bill ten five representatives Mayberry. You're recognized coming present your bill house bill ten oh five. Hello members thanks for being with us today I want to introduce who I have joined with me from disability rights Arkansas Thomas Nichols and he'll be joining me as we present this we hope to present it to you earlier in the session but we did have some concerns that I think we have direct addressed and I think we have a better bill to present to you when you have a child with a disability. You know when they're under eighteen years old you're completely in charge of everything about them when they turn eighteen you're faced with the decision of do you continue with that the way it is where you have guardianship over them and you're in complete control of all their decisions or do you give them the opportunity to be completely on their own. And the choice is kind of frightening one way or the other. I believe that we want people to be as independent as possible and you want to give them every opportunity to make every decision on their own. And yet for some that can be just a little bit too scary or too much of a risk. This what we're talking about today supported decision making allow someone the opportunity to not only be independent but to have either a person or a group of people a team if you will there by your side to help guide you let's face it it is pretty scary when you become an adult all the decisions that you have to make and this group is someone that you trust and that you have worked out in a contract to help you make decisions regarding where you're going to live how you might work how you're going to get from point a to point B. what college you might want to go to a whole bunch of of decisions that you'll have to make and there are now thirteen states that allow this Four of them were done with case law and eleven have partial supported decision making I'm gonna go ahead and let Thomas to share a little information. Mr Nichols if you please identify yourself the record then you may see thank you of my name is Thomas Nickles the legal director for disability rights Arkansas. This is actually part of a national trend that we see in offering an alternative tool to what would otherwise be substitute decision making where it's a power of attorney or a healthcare proxy or guardianship and this is simply just an alternative to that for parents for family members for friends for supporters it's a voluntary agreement so it's not forced on anybody it allows a supporter the access in the authority to help an individual with a disability understand or communicate his or her decision while safeguarding that individuals decision making authority. This agreement not to be for everybody the bill doesn't seek to destroy our alter guardianship law doesn't amend anything about powers of attorneys it doesn't affect health care proxies it stands alone is this alternative to substitute decision making because it is the person making their own decision. Bill includes a form agreement so that there's uniformity and how how this type of agreement is presented so that it can be recognized by individuals who would rely on it. And it's supported by a lot of different national organizations the American Bar Association the national guardianship association the Arkansas United States the American Association of retired persons administration for community living one of our federal funders the autistic self advocacy network or parent organization the national disability rights network and the National Council on disabilities and it's done to recognize individual autonomy and the authority of individuals and that's the trend it furthers our state of obligations under the Americans with disabilities act in the Olmstead decision and like representative Mayberry said it's been fully adopted by statute by nine states case law by four and partially adopted by eleven others and with that. I'll take any questions. Members are there any questions. Representative Hudson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair and thank you represented Mayberry Mr Nichols for bringing this bill I know that you've been working really hard on this and so I appreciate all that effort my only question and then in Mister Nichols may be best to explain this I'm not sure are there safeguards built into this are in place to make sure that the beneficiary of you know that the person seeking that that supported decision making is not being coerced or influenced unduly by the person who's supposed to be their support decision maker sure that was a concern that was expressed by the appropriate section we ensured that at like with other states there is a reference to adult protective services and and urging providers that if they see anything that looks like abuse or neglect to contacted all protective services doesn't put a requirement on them to but it's certainly advises them to nothing's gonna stop somebody from being a criminal I I don't know that this agreement would do anything to further that since it does advise them of the the need to contact APS if they recognize abuse or neglect. But it also It also is still the individual making their own decision and that in itself is a layer of protection and folks who are who are after could have taken advantage of of supported decision making or more likely to since they're making their own decisions already are more likely to self advocate and seek help for themselves are already more likely if they're not under guardianship of making their own decisions more likely to seek preventative healthcare and to call the police if something's happening to them so we think that this would move it in the direction away from coercion and abuse. Representative Cavenaugh you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair right over here. I guess I'm a little confused. If this is voluntary. And the person with the disability is the one ultimately making the decision. They can already do that so why do we need a statute that already says you can do what you can already do. Well we've had several parents families folks who I didn't know prior to this statute being filed who recognize the stigma that's associated with needing some help from another person in order to make that decision and sometimes you might not have the right people in the room to assist you with making that decision and this is to ensure that you have that supporter with you and you have the right to have that supporter with you we have had people who have complained to us about having their supporter get turned away because they're not identified as a power of attorney and they're not they're guardian and they don't always know how to make the correct decision without some assistance and while this well this might already be an accommodation that might be available to them under the under the Americans with disabilities act it is not always easily enforceable that a support person be available with them to access any medical records to access educational records and to to participate in the decision making process. We thought if it's not for everybody it's not for every situation it is definitely something that is another tool that can be used to help support a a lot of times there is also a situation where the parents if the if it let's just say it's a twenty five year old with down syndrome or what have you and the parent is with them there might be an assumption that the parent is allowed to talk and and share information or gather information but what if the parent is no longer living and. Yet that twenty five year old doesn't have a guardianship with someone else but they want to have sister in with them or maybe it's a friend that they trust that they that they want to have their and this is more of a legal document to say yes this is already agreed to you can you can share this information with this person it just makes it more Out front there. Follow up manager you're recognized for a follow up but in those instances don't we already have procedures and process that I could go and tell someone if I was that person with disability that this person I've authorize them where there's to hit both do whatever whatever its form that they get my information are those procedures but I'm not timely difficult I'm trying to understand why we created under the law if we already have the procedures in place to do it because that takes a whole lot more paperwork. every single place you go to you have to fill out something differently in my hope is that this might give them the opportunity if they show up at the school campus and they haven't already filled out all these forms that you need to fill out at the college that you can show this document and and get the same information it's just another tool that's out there. One more follow up missed manager you're recognized I guess the only problem I have with what you just said is it's my hope that that's what it stated not that that's what this is going to do that it's my hope that that's what it's going to do it perhaps I just use the wrong terminology and I apologize for that but but that is what it will do thank you. Members are there any other questions. We have one individual who's signed up to speak for the bill Dr eleven. You'd like to come before you make come speak for the bill. If you'll state your name then you may proceed. Thank you madam chair my name is Dr seared eleven I'm the CEO of Arkansas support network and the president of the Arkansas waiver Association and the Arkansas support network we provide home and community based services to approximately four hundred and fifty our Kansans across the state and the majority of the individuals that we support or individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities who live their lives under the restrictions of a legal guardianship the majority of of the folks that we support have navigate the world through our existing guardianship laws which as have been pointed out are very much all or nothing where you are either at the point of age of majority you turn eighteen you're someone who can navigate independently legal decisions or you are someone who needs additional support in those areas and a full guardianship is applied at that point which removes all of your rights as a person and guardians in Arkansas or total guardianships or total there is a significant portion of the people that we support who exist under guardianship that have the capacity and the ability to be more independent and there is a significant portion of those individuals that have a desire to be more independent in Arkansas it begins at sixteen sometimes early as fourteen where children receiving special education services here from their families here from the school systems that decisions have to be made about who can make legal decisions at the age of eighteen and often times guardianship decisions are made at that point I I was fourteen or sixteen once and I was not at a place in my life where somebody needed to make a decision about whether or not I would make good decisions as a legal adult. With disabilities need additional supports and the supported decision making bill allows them a vehicle to receive those supports without having to lose rights at the age of eighteen it also doesn't alter the guardianship structure and so if that individual needs more restrictive supports further down the line they're able to access those but the most important thing about this bill is it gives us an opportunity to begin to prepare we as a service provider have the ability to provide support around how to utilize the supported decision making contract how to put that in place how to build the skills necessary to be more independent that opportunity does not exist today people do not have this middle ground to prepare for and this bill is a great value add to the lives of individuals with intellectual developmental disabilities in Arkansas and we would ask that you would support this bill. Thank you appreciate your testimony all right next we have ms Browning who signed up to speak was brown if you come forward state your name and may begin. Hello everyone. My name is Jane Browning I'm a resident of sling County and I have a thirty seven year old son who has down syndrome. Yes Is on guardian and always has been we've taken lots of precautions along the way we have a will we have an irrevocable trust in his name we have of power of attorney for his medical welfare and he has a. Of the representative payee for his SSI payments that is in power through the group living program that supervises him he lives in his own house in Arkadelphia but he is under the supervision of groups living. So we have cobbled together legal means of allowing him to maintain his full citizenship and still protect him as an IQ of about fifty five if I might go back I believe it was mis Cavenaugh talking about it don't it don't they already have the power to do these things my son might not recognize when he was in a position where he needed assistance in making some of these decisions or that even some of these decisions needed to be made if we had a contract with a supportive decision maker then that person would be monitoring his situation and looking out for him all the time much as the guardian would do but without stripping him of his citizenship rights which we've never been willing to do. Now. I'm starting to losing my faculties you know I'm I it powers up and abilities are diminishing your by your I'm seventy three years old and I'm not going to be here forever to look out for Paul and look over your shoulder and I might need a supportive assistant here myself along the way and I'd be delighted to utilize this bill I'm my own bath but in the meantime I would love to see this bill passed because it is that alternative to guardianship it still maintains all of my sons powers intact but it gives him the support he needs a guess and that adaptation to live his life fully and Another point I'd like to make is with regard to safeguarding the the person from. A bad actors being the supported a helper there is a band there on of that the supported helper being someone who is paid by of the. An individual or who is a. Paid to work with him it eliminates conflicts of interest it cheaply would go to a family member right now with the I would be assigning this to my older son may Paul's Big Brother so I I hope that you will consider this bill I think it's extremely useful and as representative Mayberry pointed out. Everi family who has a special education child Brunson to this wall when that child turns eighteen one day your mom whose helping him washes hair and brush his teeth and time issue and as soon as the I think it's lift off that eighteenth birthday cake you don't have any say so whatsoever legally about the welfare of that person so having this alternate step in between all or nothing in between that and guardianship would be a real blessing and the guardianship option is always there if that proves to be necessary down the road but this would give families great satisfaction and give people with disabilities the support that they need so thank you very much thank you Mr president we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representative Mayberry you're recognized close for your bill. Sorry I'm in pain. Has nothing to do with the bill I think it's a reaction to the vaccine all other story. So I'm gonna make sure your vote for the bill so I can go and go home. Members representing Mayberry is close for bill what's the wishes of the committee I have a motion to do pass I have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion of the motion. All favor the motion please say aye. All opposed say no the ayes have it. Distribu. No. Now you can go on but we don't Clapham sorry. And we cannot clap in a committee room up next fill up is house bill thirteen thirteen representing private members through the finance of an impact statement. Should be a S. so if you find the impact statement. So if you have any questions representative right you'll have that in front of you. Senate right you're recognized president house bill thirteen thirteen yes ma'am thank you. Thank you Committee and I come today to. S. two a ask you to help us Correction things that actually should have probably been corrected a long time ago I know through last summer and. On January six everyone saw what happened at the capitol in and emotions a say in what we're basically trying to do. With this piece of legislation is to just simply make it against the law and have different degrees of for turn up. Anything that there's here on the capitol grounds. It also covers the governor's mansion and it's pretty simple bill is just We're trying to cut down on any kind of damage if they would do here at the capitol. You can imagine why anyone would ever want to do something like that. But. It happens but we do not want it to happen here last last night we had of a certain amount of trouble. Back I guess it was already made when when the the grounds were set on fire here to capital and the doors were painted. And you're just a bad thing and it could next time it could be worse so. I would really appreciate some help on this one because I really believe we need to do this. Members are there any questions. Thank you for your recognized for a question no I apologize a motion at the right time. Members are there any questions. Seeing no one who is signed up to speak for against the bill representative proper you're recognized for your motion. I can make a motion for do pass I'm sorry members we have a motion to do pass on the floor. There any discussion of the motion. All in favor please say aye. I'll close I know. Thank you Kerry's congratulations your pastor deal very much. Members let's turn to House Bill fifteen oh five represent the fight. We have also. But fiscal impact statement on this bill so if members should be at your desk if you'll take a look at that so if you have any questions representative fight. The physical impact represent the fight you're recognized to present your bill thank you madam chair I would like to call my witness to the table with me Stacey Bankston. Members more than a year ago back in the olden days before co that I was listening to KUAM on the radio and I heard an interview talking about a project called the hit and run project that was based in Fayetteville I had never heard of the hit run project and on that interview Stacey Bankston who's with me today was speaking and she was talking about have having made it her mission in life to increase our a hit and run laws to strengthen them all over the United States she had already accomplished this in Missouri when she left there she had recently moved to Arkansas and was talking about wanting to strengthen our Arkansas laws against hit and run. I got in touch with miss banks Dennis and I'd like to learn more about your project we met in a restaurant painful and we talked and became friends and we communicated now alter covid and today and bringing this to you. I would like for you to hear miss banks and story represent one of the bill. Thank you you're recognized. Good afternoon my name is Stacy Bankston. First I'd like to thank you for allowing me to speak here today. I'm. Here today to advocate for the passage of house bill fifteen five. My modus for advocacy or two fold I'm first a licensed clinical social worker in the state of Arkansas 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 but more importantly I'm curious a mother. Who lost her son in Hendren incident. To begin I'd like to just give you a couple of statistics to educate you about the prevalence of hit and run. Hinderance claimed nearly fifteen lives per day in the United States according to the US department transportation. According to the Arkansas state police and highway safety department in two thousand nineteen there were nine thousand seven hundred and sixty one crashes involving it runs hundred sixty of those incidents were involved pedestrians and fourteen those for fatalities the numbers for two thousand and twenty twenty won't be complete for another three months but I was told to the officer that I talk to that so far there have been a hundred and sixty seven pedestrian involved accidents in twenty five fatalities the numbers have actually increased despite the decrease activity due to the pandemic but the cause right now it's unknown. On September fifteenth of two thousand fifteen in Neosho Missouri around one AM. Two cars left the parking lot of a local tavern and began drag racing north into town. At the same time my nineteen year old son Matthew Stevens was walking back into town from seeing his new girlfriend he was really excited. My son's body was hit with such force. That it costs and a shortage of terror. And his body was thrown two hundred fifty four feet. Which is roughly the length of a football field. The driver left my son on the highway. Like a piece of discarded trash. With my undergrad degree in criminal justice I assume that if the driver caught that they would be charged with vehicular homicide or manslaughter. What I learned is that because. He fled the scene we couldn't prove that he was committing another crime at the time that he hit and killed my child. Therefore he can only be charged with leaving the scene. And in Missouri in two thousand fifteen the penalty 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 man was sentenced to three years and the only served less than eighteen months. In two thousand seventeen I started a nonprofit called the hit and run project. Our mission is to support. An advocate for victims and their families hit and run incidents. To educate the public about leaving the scene laws. In two thousand seventeen that same year I witness Missouri's governor signed a law to increase the penalty for leaving the scene. Current Arkansas law has fleeing the scene is a Class D. felony which carries a penalty of up to six years and up to ten thousand dollar fine. I'm here today. To please please ask yourselves. If six years would be enough if this happened to your one of your loved ones. Deffenbaugh I physically. Or death of a way of life due to internal and external injuries never changes for the victim or their family. It is a line of demarcation. Thank you for considering a do pass this bill. Represent what you're recognized thank you specifically what it what we do in the bill we get some definitions that have not been in the Code previously as to what at this a call injury is and what a serious physical injury as and then we go on to say that to the driver who causes a physical are serious physical injury must remain at the C. as close as possible to the scene of the accident or return to as close as possible to the scene of the accident and then if a person fails to do the S. and the accident results in physical injury to another person he or she upon conviction is guilty of a Class D. felony or in the case of a serious physical injury or death and another person he or she upon conviction is guilty of a Class B. felony. And the for them at the next paragraph says secretary of the department of finance and Administration shall revoke the driver's license or commercial driver's license if the person convicted under sub division C. one of this section so that is the change we're asking for this is a very different bill then we started out with we have amended it considerably add to make it more amenable to all sides so this is what I'm bringing before you today. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we do have some individuals who have signed up to speak on this bill we have Jeff Rosenzweig speak against the bill. Jefferson's one Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers there are some problems with this bill and they arise out of the particular way the Arkansas statute has been interpreted of the in Stivers versus state about twenty years ago the Arkansas Supreme Court specifically said that this was a strict liability offence there was no requirement to prove any sort of of men's what's called men's rate of the words a culpable mental state or scienter which is knowledge in other words a person can be convicted unlike in most other states a person can be convicted and sent to the penitentiary for six years right now even though he or she had no idea that he or she may have even been in in an accident that he or she may have thought they had a a dog or cat or a you know a deer or hit a box on the road or something like that no those things are. Will be rare but they do happen and I'm sure most people will know people who've been in that situation or or something close to that of this bill does nothing to add a men's ray requirement but what it does do is wreck is raise the penalties up to twenty years now here's the problem with that the United States Supreme Court has said over and over and over again that they do not lie bills or laws that have a there are strict liability they are possible neighbor of of tell them but they noted regularly that they're in the context of of what are called a public health issues regulatory issues highly regulated things in other words people dealing with explosives dealing with of putting attainted of food or drink in the circulation that type of thing and not not things that everyone in an un break in and not really regulated manner deals within their in their everyday life and in one case fairly recently excitement video they imputed a imputed a a mental state into the offense even though none was listed in the statute because they they held that otherwise the penalty which was the maximum in that case was ten years that the penalty of would otherwise be too harsh for a for a strict liability offence so what you're likely to have had. And here and I would suggest that it is likely that that a court would strike down or you would have a serious set of issues about striking down the statute that has no man's raha no science or but has a penalty of up to twenty years and anyway that's so that's what we have to that's what I have to say and I'm happy to answer any questions. Members are there any questions. Signal questions thank you for your okay I think representative McCollum. There you are. I just wanted to ask because I'm not I'm not sure that's correct if there's no mental state in if there's no mental intent stated doesn't it default to a minimum negligence well you would think so that's that was what the argument was in Stivers that was specifically rejected there is a statute in the criminal code that says that a mental state is imputed unless the court's ascertain a specific Legislative intent that there be not and in fact backed up and that was the decision and Stivers I've got of. So. Server Sir Okay of therefore therefore the Here the legislature what they said was here the legislature clearly intended to dispense with any intent requirement in twenty seven fifty three one oh one therefore the trial court did not err in declining to in Grafton element of intent into the statute or in refusing Stivers is up for proper instructions you're correct that the statute nor the the Arkansas Code normally says it defaults to a mental state but there is an exception there is an exception if the court finds that there was no Legislative intent that was that was the holding in Stivers they've done that and several other cases the risk of strict liability this has has been found on release was found on knowledge of age of a person with whom one was having sex that bring us so there are strict liabilities of statutes but obviously in the in the sex cases people know they're having sex with the no you know the age of the person. Madam chair you're recognized for a follow up so does the case law holds that mental state is imputed one is not stated in the statute so statute impute mental state is that correct what the statute says it the statute says is that a mental state is imputed on the last a a legislative is intent Legislative intent is discerned to not have to not so in Q. that was the finding inside. I mean that that within and that's to me the Stivers Court. Used that carve out to find that there was no mental state required one more play you're recognized for another follow Stivers said mental state was imputed no no service that will mention no no Stivers said there was no mental state the state needed to prove no mantles no culpable mental state whatever in order to get a conviction under the statute. Represent college you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair I'm wondering in your reading of this is there any difference between is there anything in the actual accident. That is necessarily has to be different for to be Class B. versus Class D. what I mean by that is a physical injury could result from almost the same type of accident as a serious physical injury is this right I mean or if I'm missing something about that but what of the of the the statute as is currently in effect ascribes it makes it a Class D. no matter how how of minimal or maximal the injury is it just says injury of what this what this statute does is it is punishes is it what the what the proposal would do is to say it will be a D. felony if it's a quick physical injury which can be something as little as a bruise corrections are and and they just picked up the definitions of physical injury and serious from the criminal code this particular provision is not in the criminal code it's in the traffic. but it's you know it's a criminal offense that is found in the traffic code but if there is a serious physical injury. as as defined in the in the statute man it's a B. felony but there again is no requirement that you know that you've been a wrecker know that you've created this serious physical injury or any or anything like that and you can solve the problem by just putting in some sort of scienter requirement into the statute but just in whether you say written recklessly negligently purposely knowingly just some of by putting a culpable mental state into the statute you can you can solve the the constitutional pro. And all you need to speak one work. In the in the right place in the sense of course. Represent Clowney you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair Mr Rosenzweig did you talk to the bill's sponsors of about adding a word no I have not all right hi I did I did not I just saw this on the on the. Docket recently and I figured I'd come and test you know test mine I have not just thank you. I see no other questions thank you for your testimony we have Kimberly. Monday will mark saying that correct who is signed up to speak for the bill. You'll identify yourself and you may make your statement thank you good afternoon 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 he was really honestly really good at it. John had completed the big dam bridge race the one hundred mile race about five times. He had completed the rain ride which is the right across Indiana. Which is about a hundred and sixty mile bike ride and one day he had completed that about eight different times in addition to numerous other. Races and rides that he had done. He was extremely healthy he was extremely athletic and together we alone did two marathons in a duathlon. John was always put safety first as a cyclist who was very active in the cycling community his bicycle was well maintained he always wore a helmet and every time he wrote he had a headlight in a in a tail light on even during the day and we had had a conversation about that and he told me that that helped motor see him better even during the day. As you're aware in the middle of July and this again was twenty months ago today. In the middle of July and it stays light until at least around nine o'clock. John left the house about six thirty that it that afternoon to go for a ride at about eight fifteen I had a sure would police officer on my doorstep. We didn't have much information at the time but by the time I made it to the hospital. There were two sure would police detectives there who informed me that this was not an accident this was a hit run. While John was riding here completed about twenty at least twenty miles on his route according to his after he had on his phone. He was traveling on highway one oh seven when a motorist came from behind hit him from behind and left them there on the side of the road. We fully became to understand the extent of his injuries. Later on that evening when a neurosurgeon came out and told us that he had suffered quote catastrophic injuries. John died four days later on July the twenty second of two thousand and nineteen and we had been married only fifty eight days. I've spent the last twenty months again twenty months ago today that he was hit I've spent the last twenty months trying to understand something that absolutely does not make sense. And when you find yourself in a situation where you have no control over what has happened no control over the outcome you look for opportunities. To try to make a difference for good. To try to help others and to try to be involved so that there are some things that you can do and that's why I am here today. I'm very thankful to the sure would police department who did not push the case aside who actively worked the case for many months. They made an arrest about eight months after John was killed John was killed and that was about a year ago. The individual who is currently in foster county jail was charged in our case with negligent homicide while intoxicated but also with leaving the scene which as we know is a Class D. felony. When something like this happens to you you become hyper vigilant and hyper aware of other similar cases that occurred and unfortunately in many of those other cases leaving the scene again which is only a D. felony. Is the worst that the person is charged with to put that into a little bit of perspective there is a current law that has a higher penalty for someone who fails to appear in court on a felony charge which is a C. felony than somebody who leaves the scene and leave somebody on the side of the road. This bill if it passes would not affect our case as our case is currently under way in the court system so this would not affect our outcome anyway but if it can help someone else along the road he finds themselves and unfortunately in a very horrifying situation if it helps them and then I fully support it. Amassed almost at times if I ever feel like I'll ever get justice. Even if there is a conviction in our case and I don't think you ever really get justice I want my husband back and I'll never have that. But if the laws that are on the books can be strengthened and better represent the severity of a crime than that does give families and the victims who were left behind a little bit more. flexibility and a little bit more Avenue for justice. I've also been asked what kind of person was John. In two words come to mind John was a gentle soul. He was kind he was humble he was probably the most patient person I have ever met. He was a hard worker. He first and foremost love the lord. And he deeply Love Me. John was more than a statistic. He was more than. A tragedy. He was a genuine person who I truly loved. And he was a good person he's the kind of person that would have given the shirt off his back to the individual who left him on the side of the road. If by sharing his story today keeps his memory alive and it helps someone else in the process who finds themselves in an unfortunate situation then my hope and my honest prayer is that may be something good or positive can come from this horrible nightmare thank you so much for the opportunity to speak and I appreciate your vote. Thank you I see no questions we appreciate your test. We haven't Gregory Jones who signed up to speak against the bill Mister Johns if you'll come forward to identify yourself and who you're with you make. Good afternoon. I'm here today on behalf of the Arkansas association of defense counsel. We're not here because we're opposed to having restrictions against or rules against it run driver's. Let me say this to begin with a this mandolins Bankston. My heart goes out to you. What happened should never have happened. As I look at the my representatives and and Blair not represent the call of your mind. I think of two main goals that this body house one is to try to make current law better. Which represented fight is is trying to do here. The other is to avoid the rule of unintended consequences. Those twin goals I would think should apply to every bill comes in for this body. What does it have to do with what we have here. We in our group do not normally get involved in criminal types of matters. But we are alert to laws that can be made it can be improved. It's not that we're necessarily against the concept behind the bill it is Mr Rosenzweig pointed out there is a defect that exists and the irony of this defect is if it is allowed to go forward. Then a prosecution could be made. And and in the wake of another dreadful accident. And that defendant could go free. What we would suggest. This body consider improving the the bill by addressing the very issue Mr Rosenzweig mentioned. The lack of a men's right there is it a technicality here that is strange. representative Hudson I know you deal with issues like this all the time. But it's it's strange because this sounds like a criminal statute doesn't. It's a felony under current law to do. What these terrible people dead in Missouri and here in central Arkansas. Right now the statute does not have a men's Rick component. And that is component that first year lawyers first year law students represented our if we can go back far enough there no is a critical component why doesn't work in this instance. Was Mr Rosenzweig mentioned. There is a case called Stivers. I believe represent recall you were asking some good questions about that. The way that Stivers works the way the Supreme Court addressed the issue was to say if it falls under. the criminal code then that default statute I think that you were referring to represent recalled it's for Arkansas code annotated five two two oh three at B.. And basically it says if there's no specific requirement no we're specific mens rea requirement in the statute then it defaults to amends rate component and I can be purposeful activity knowing activity or reckless. I'm getting into the weeds a little bit here and I apologize for that. It is important to keep that in mind and what we would suggest and I believe is represent Clowney had had a a question which is a good one. How do you fix that problem. Because right now the way it works is because the existing statute. Is classified as a traffic offense as opposed to a criminal code offence there is no minimum there's no men's ray requirements. There is a way to fix that in a way to fix that is to add some language to this bill. That would basically say that the driver of any vehicle who has knowledge that there's been an accident. Knowledge of an injury. Is a man continue one it would impose it would add the necessary of men's recommend that the that this statute currently lacks and unfortunately that the proposed bill does not remedy. Members are there any questions. Representative Hudson you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair and and I appreciate your your testimony in your explanation of of sort of how to fix this this mental state issue so. Without getting too far and we tell them afraid ready there I was looking at five two two oh three and then it you were saying if we could put in some sort of mental state knowledge of the accent of the injury and I think within that just that simple phrase there are lots of different areas that we have to consider we saying that they must know that they were in an accident that had a person or to Mr Mr resins wax point earlier or do they just need to know they hit something do they have to know that there was an injury or do or serious injury or do they just have to know that they were going fast enough to have caused an injury I mean so where do you think that that one we're really talking about mental state where do you think that should come down in this ideally you would have twin components one was that they knew that they were in an accident because there are situations where let's say a cars going down the road and turns off in front of somebody that they never saw. And on the go and other core runs into a tree. Me when I think about the purpose of the hit run statute what is it does what is it really designed to do. Is to get you the stop and go back and held. You might say that why for over than injury and if you don't know that you've been in an accident. The purpose of the statute is is not fulfilled back to your question what could you do I would suggest is twin elements knowledge an action occurred and knowledge of a potential injury arm that can be addressed the number of different ways but that would resolve that issue that would make this up frankly it makes a whole statutory scheme considerably better. Representing the call you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair isn't isn't it correct that it's it's a defense it's a D. felony already currently yes without a mental state and has not been struck down as unconstitutional isn't mental state really a non issue D. felony already makes it a criminal offense is not just a traffic offense. Well one would think so. According to the according to the Arkansas Supreme Court and Stivers decision there the mental state that's required that comes up is triggered if the statute falls within the quote criminal code. With the Supreme Court said in Stivers is that it does not fall within the crypt trip of criminal code it falls within the traffic code and as result that of our code annotated five to two OO three V. does not apply that was the ruling that's the one Arkansas. Unless there's anything else and I'll a law. Thank you senator just long enough to get a couple more questions represent it you're recognized. Yes madam chair just. Cures you. You agree that the the data in the nation this situation needs to be fixed are there is a problem. Right I thank both of you agree that adding a word would make it better or make it rider. Is is that what you're saying. Yes yes Sir adding a men's rate component does two things it it addresses the underlying issue in the purposes behind the statute number one number two frankly bring Arkansas online and in connection with other jurisdictions for example Missouri. Of which is Bankston had a role in improving the law there. It too has a men's ray component. And that the language doesn't read exactly the whole statute doesn't read the same way exactly as our current statute but it it tracks it okay this bill has been filed since September of since the February twenty first have you reached out to them to. Correct this so we'll make it work. This is the first time my my organization learned about this I think yesterday this bill so it certainly is something that that I think we will be happy about this if the improvements could be made all. Representative Richmond you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair over here thank you. If you added this language something about you know knowledge or something like that of the accident then I have a concern and maybe you can you can help me with this that in a hit and run often times there's only one witness left the line and that's the individual that actually was driving the vehicle that did the hit and run and left the scene. It seems to me that if if I'm asked that question and I was willing to do a hit and run I'm just may be just as willing to go ahead in line say I had no idea that I hit anybody. You know come up with many reasons why I was able to flee the scene because I don't think there was any problem how's it going to be addresses just seems like that that creates a very easy way for somebody to challenge anything that the prosecutor might have. Well I mean if they're going to take away that position will have to take the stand and they'll be subject to cross examination on that there could be a situation as you as you posit where is that the middle of nowhere and no one else sees it that's true. Usually that's not the case but but that could happen but again this would be consistent as as I mentioned before building on what Mr Rosenzweig the mission to you. It would be a heck of a tragedy if that scenario representative Richmond occurred that person frankly got away. Because the statute was ruled unconstitutional because it lacked that mens rea component to me that would be the ultimate tragedy. Thank you Sir thank you manager. Members are there any other questions. Seeing no other questions this witness thank you Mister Jones thank you very much. We have no one else who has signed up to speak for or against the bill representative fight you're recognized a common clothes for your bill. Thank you I'm not an attorney. But I am a person with what I consider reasonable common sense. The bill was filed considerable length of time ago The Amendment was filed over a week ago no one has come to talk to me with concerns about this bill other than the trucking association and I address their concerns and amended the bill. How mention that you have been drinking. Are your under the influence of drugs. Or you know that you've been acting in a reckless B. and in a reckless manner you had something. You're not sure if it's a person or an animal or some other object. But you think if that were a person. I'm better off to flee I'm better off just to go on and get away from here and pretend this never happened if I get caught by that time the drugs will be out of my system. And I will face a lesser fine then I would. If I stayed. That's what this bill is about. If you flee there is intent because you intended to flee you did not stay you did not check to see if someone was hurt you might not have intended to kill someone that you did intend to flee also on line sixteen it says upon conviction the person must be convicted before any of these penalties come into play so I ask you to keep that in mind I'd ask you to keep these families in mind and I would ask you for a good vote thank you for your time. Representing the call you're recognized I'd like to make a motion to pass. There is we have a motion to do pass the floors or any discussion representing the calling you're recognized thank you madam chair. Just just like the ladies are here today testifying my brother was hitting the was killed in a hit and run in twenty eighteen in may of twenty eighteen while riding his bicycle. And also left there we're we're pretty sure that the man had been drinking heavily but there was no way to prove that this simply fixes a loophole that if you. Leave the scene you can avoid at the United you can avoid all of those things that you would we would be able to be proven had you stayed and done the right thing. when people don't stay and do the right thing there should be a stiffer punishment because right now you are better off if you hit and kill somebody you are better off to run if you are impaired in any way you're better off to run. This simply fixes a loophole this this statute has not been overturned but I appreciate the testimony of our attorneys here I really do they're here for their clients and to do what's best for them. This starts Stivers case is not about this statute this statute has not been found unconstitutional as a D. felony it will not be found unconstitutional as a B. felony so I ask you to to vote to pass this bill thank you. Representative Cavenaugh you're recognized for discussion thank you madam chair. From a personal perspective. I had a good friend. Standing on a roll. Helping in motorist. Change a tire. German comes by. He's intoxicated. He hit her. Send to the length of a football field. Not sure she's off. The person left the scene of the accident. When I find the person. He said I had no knowledge. You know what happened. He didn't have to pay the ultimate price for killing. My friend. Because the city didn't have knowledge in reality what it happened. If he fled because he was intoxicated. And not the first time. So there is a loophole here and I think we have to fix it because there are those families and friends that died because of this that don't get justice thank you. Members we have a motion to do pass on the floor any further discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no the ayes have it you have passed your bill. Thank you thank you thank you committee reps the fight why did you stay right there we have one other bill I don't think it'll take you but a second Senate bill four sixty four. Members of he'll turn to Senate bill four sixty four and representing fight you'll be recognized to present that bill. Thank you this is a very unpleasant bill as are many that you deal with the judiciary. Before you get started hang on members there is an impact statement on your desk. First Senate bill four sixty four if you also want to take a look at that if you have any questions I'm sorry to interrupt it's okay. You're recognized to go ahead thank you all right thank you this is an unpleasant bill as are many that you deal with and Judiciary Committee. Senate bill four sixty four was not a prosecutor association bill but I do appreciate their support and preparing the bill the need for this bill was requested by a police department detective and a prosecutor from senator rice in my area after concern for lack of sentencing discretion. Here's what happened in this ugly case a thirty are so year old uncle required his five year old needs to go into the bedroom with him where he directed her to remove all of her clothing and he did the same. Well he supposedly did not touch her he violated her in a way that can leave a lifetime of trauma. It was found that the law only allows a Class D. felony in this case examples of a Class D. felony include breaking and entering a building structure or vehicle criminal mischief in the first degree destroys or damages of property of another and the latest Class D. felony is the porch pirate penalty for stealing packages. This bill adds to the definition of sexual contact contact. Urinating defecating or ejaculating on another person for the purpose of sexual gratification this increases to D. at this increases the date to a class B. felony the penalty is not less than five years no more than twenty years and up to a fifteen thousand dollar fine. Committee members that was not pleasant for me to read that to you but imagine the little girl who lived it and not much can happen to the uncle who did it let's fix that. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill C. Fite you're recognized to close for your bill I am closed. Members represent five is closed for bill what are the wishes of the committee we have a motion to do pass any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you're patched your bill thank you madam chair thank you committee members. Members. The next bill we will be turning to will be house bill fifteen twenty five representive Lundstrum you're recognized come to the table and percent your bill. Thank you colleagues like ten by Roger Smith up to the table. Members this is the bill that we heard on Tuesday and representative Lundstrum pulled it down. And made an amendment I believe did you not and filed yes early or early have starting gross in the bill. You may proceed thank you colleagues. You want me to in addition. Ballinger hi my name is Roger Smith's committee members are represent the fraternal order of police and The Amendment ninety eight when it was created had a very long list of things you're not supposed to do with medical marijuana it's fairly clear the problem arises from there being no clear way for law enforcement to deal with it it is this bill basically addresses about three areas number one the Amendment said you weren't allowed to transport medical marijuana from another state and our state of some of our joining states have a different. Laws than ours And technically if you have a medical marijuana card in this state you're not really allowed to buy in another state so there are some transportation issues particularly in areas that are along borders such as northwest Arkansas bordering Oklahoma. And there been instances where people have been found to be carrying substantially more medical marijuana and is allowed in this state and it would appear there on the intent was to resell it because of the volume that they had there are federal laws prohibiting that but it's very difficult often times to pursue it as a federal violation so local police simply need a guideline this bill says clearly it is illegal to transport medical marijuana across state lines. There is an issue Probably nobody thought about it. But people with the card are allowed to buy up to two and a half ounces of medical marijuana every fourteen days but there isn't anything that says how much they might have with them while transporting it in their car for example so this bill allows up to five ounces that they could have in their vehicle because sometimes they don't use all that they purchased the previous time they're buying again in fourteen days and it could exceed the two point five an ounce limit so This liberalize is that makes a little easier for them and lastly and and what's important for for law enforcement is how to deal with it and what this basically says is all of those things listed in Amendment ninety eight would be treated as a Class C. misdemeanor. As I understand it a Class C. misdemeanor carries with it a penalty of no more than two hundred dollars that is generally decided by the local jurisdiction meaning the District Court so often times it's not more than a twenty five dollar fine but obviously this is closing the gap but we fail to do an Amendment eighty at ninety eight was just to clarify how it should be dealt with from a legal perspective by law enforcement. Members are there any questions. Represented representative college you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair and thank you all so I mean are we really live realizing that possession with five ounces because is amended ninety eight is silent on possession and. it seems like this is a new restriction in kind of a low restriction if they're allowed to pick up two and a half ounces every two weeks no Sir no Sir no no in what way no they're not allowed to pick up any more than there two and a half ounces every two weeks there is nothing that says how much they might have with them at any time so this simply says it can't be more than five ounces and there's absolutely nothing that says how much they might have at home. So the only restrictions currently are that they can't purchase more than two and a half and but this tries to do is if they happen to have more than two and a half that's not that's not a violation as long as it doesn't exceed five ounces follow. You're recognized for a follow up I think I might have misstated work somehow confused that I was referring to when you set this liberalized the possession for them somehow it made it easier on them it seems like it's actually making it harder on them because they're not gonna be allowed to carry more than five ounces in any kind of a transportation situation is that right I don't I don't think that's the case I think the problem was that some people felt if they had more than two and a half. That would be a violation and this is trying to clarify that so it clearly wouldn't be a violation okay thanks. Representative Cavenaugh you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair my question is dealing with the to be intoxicated. Well as an employer we deal with is also. The when you use medical marijuana can stays in the bloodstream for quite some time so what's going to be the definition of how we determine intoxicated well just because someone uses medical marijuana doesn't mean they're intoxicated that's on a step was that but when someone is intoxicated for example a bartender knows when someone's intoxicated because there are certain signs of intoxication but you don't know if they're intoxicated from marijuana or opioids or alcohol but there are certain physical signs staggering slurred speech that type of thing so that's where that. That baseline starts now. Testing that type of thing is employer that's all we're not going into that area at all this is just what the officer sees when they approached someone if they're intoxicated. Following a moment you're recognized for a follow up it's safe to be intoxicated due to the use of medical marijuana right so you might say that I show the signs of being intoxicated. Medical marijuana but how do we know because it stays in the bloodstream for section eight long period of time how what what safeguard to do you have that they may not be intoxicated but we they're just goofy just to say it but because it does stay in the system for such a long time that we're going to get people that who weren't using medical marijuana and these prohibited places but they're gonna get issued fines for it Mr manners because they're going to test because of the type of link that it stays in the system. I will attempt to address it's basically. What anybody would normally Assume based on observation of somebody is unsteady if their behavior is erratic they might assume that they were intoxicated but there is no testing involved if there was a more serious incident where they might have been involved in a car accident and they might have their blood tested that otherwise this is strictly based on observation. Madam chair. You're recognized for follow up so you're telling me that and we could go to somebody and just because of the way that they're looking we're going to say that you're intoxicated because or intoxicated I'm going to go ahead and you're going to get this Mr Mainer without any way to test whether or not they truly are. No ma'am I don't assume that's the case I I don't think they're that law enforcement is looking to. Make a big issue of it is just they have to have the ability because of ninety eight as to where they can and can't use the product of one of those places where there and under Amendment ninety eight not allowed to be intoxicated from the that product medical marijuana is actually in a dispensary or on the grounds of the of the cultivation facility so I don't think that is a particular problem with this That that kinda has to be part of this bill because of Amendment ninety eight addressing. It actually says public space. It does ma'am and I I would think if somebody is you know that there are actually not supposed to use the product and most public spaces like on school grounds in a public park things like that so if somebody were in those areas and obviously were acting may be out of control so to speak you said goofy that's pretty good word I think that the I think under certain circumstances they might question that person and find out if they really felt they were intoxicated or not and if they were for not only that the individual safety but everybody else they would. probably wanted to deal with that thank you mention. Representative had said you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair I'd like to pick up a representative Cavenaugh left off because I'm troubled by the idea that we are going to empower officers make a judgment call about whether or not someone is putting but goofy and then this person in order to prove it will be subjected to some sort of test I guess based on probable cause so we're not testing them at all they're just determining that they are intoxicated by marijuana how are they making that there really is no test I'm like where alcohol is involved there is no test at all for this the only thing I'm aware of is is what representative Cavenaugh mentioned blood test things like that but you would never do that At the scene the it's just have to kind of be a judgment call and and that's the case with a lot of things that just has to be based on observation and and judgment. Follows I'm here you're recognized for a follow up so if someone is acting goofy maybe they're having a stroke maybe they are also using opiates or other prescription medications in order to handle some other ad health issue maybe they have other medications that are in our acting weird. Why are we going to make them be subject to a ticket because you have no way to prove what that what the cost was if they have if the officer decides that they are intoxicated through marijuana which I guess so the side because they have a marijuana card is not probable cause for determining that they're intoxicated I don't think so no so what do we do about these other situations in which someone might be having a stroke or might be having a reaction to medication I think I think the normal reaction of probably all police officers would be if the person is in distress they would do everything they could to get them assistance as quickly as possible this isn't designed to be any kind of a tool to to use against anyone particularly those that use medical marijuana because it's clearly a product for their medical needs that that's clear and so it's not for that at all let's follow up manager. One more follow up thank you I want to go back finally to the idea of a public place because you mentioned areas like schools playgrounds things like that but generally speaking I think that you would agree that when we have a need to exclude prohibited places like schools churches things like that the statute says so so I'm wondering why in this case we've defaulted to close a public place that is not defined any further than that which means it could be on the sidewalk outside somebody's house it could be standing in their front yard. Why are we not defining it if we're trying to limit it to certain typical prohibited places I think that basically the title of the bill defines that it is all part of Amendment ninety eight and only Amendment ninety eight so it really only addresses all of those items that are listed in ninety eight nothing more than that and those are all very clear though those are. The specific we could we could have listed all of them but as long as we're not going beyond what Amendment ninety eight the restrictions of ninety eight they're they're not gonna go out there and any other circumstance and try to enforce it. Represent a slight you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair of we're using the term goofy so much I thought was being addressed but the during the most agencies of worked with in and around the state have what they call a drug recognition expert they can tell by the physiology and the testing that they've done that's recognized by the courts can determine if they're intoxicated normally but what type of drug that it is don't you agree I have not had a. I would agree that that exist I'm just not familiar with it put it that way okay it's a it's a grueling class to take all the will tell you that but the they're able to recognize in the talks moon on being an intoxicated the the the question I have how many officers do you know the walks of life As acting weird and goes up and says well I'm I'm giving you take if because you're intoxicated instead of doing a verbal interview with them to see if it's a medical induced or a impairment. I believe they would always check first to see if this is a medical do they have their their card are they legitimate purchaser of medical marijuana that would be the first first question of course because if they're not then it's a whole different code section that would deal with a possession and and use of a of a drug it's in that list of all those things are prohibited okay thank you Sir thank manager. I see no other questions we have a couple of individuals who have signed up to speak against the bill. Kelly Roberts. Driver to come forward. You'll just press the button and when it turns red you may begin. Good afternoon my name is John Kelly Roberts may of two thousand ten hours driving fifth wheel semi truck and it the tanker truck rolled. I have damaged. To my head neck hips. I also have soft tissue damage to my brain. I have. Our time today in even before medical marijuana with the pills and such they had me in effectively helping with my daily stresses bills did not help. They also give me trigger point injections they worked very limited Lee but they did not help would it cost me to do was become really moody. And we're not a real nice person to be around until medical marijuana to medical cannabis. After the medical cannabis came in its own due to it not only take care of my pain make it more manageable it became I became me again. A person I haven't seen in ten years. I was able to be the man of my family always known and loved in fact it's only because of medical marijuana or cannabis I'm here today the able to speak to talk to you all. I'm just one story of seventy thousand medical cannabis patients and stepped one of the seventy thousand finally found relief from their own pain and trauma with medical cannabis unfortunately despite finding that relief we continue to have to overcome outdated stereotypes stigmas misinformation and even after everyday Arkansans listen to the science. And others around this country and legalized medical cannabis center thousand Arkansans canvas patients are still haven't overcome efforts to put in place more challenges. For them to legally access to medicine. The state's voters determined it should be legal under the law. Mr stern's bill is just the latest example this bill attempts to legalize any excuse to target vulnerable law abiding medical cannabis to patients this call is created a type of cannabis speed trap. It lays out roadmap for abuse in targets one group of people who often have less resources instruments to fight it most cannabis patients have to travel long distances to go to the dispensaries and therefore we often carpool. Where each person may be able to purchase their to half ounces. If you have a to three people in the vehicle with you you are now breaking this law that they're now trying to put into place. The best efforts. The best the dispensaries in our best efforts Canada still has a nice progressive owner if you were to get pulled over for simple traffic stop coming back from dispensary then you would also have as some reps would know in Rome about you they may try to search you and then you would be in trouble. It's also hard to say when you hear the word intoxication of cannabis any person to use cannabis is on a daily basis like myself will always test positive for cannabis. Now yeah I heard the word intoxication there's intoxication with alcohol intoxication with pills there's intoxication with everything on every prescription you get there's a disclaimer on their please see how you relate relate to it. A lot of people take these medicines to go into public to be able to function in the public to get rid of anxiety issues they have. Also to help them with just being able to walk through the stores of Walmart yes some of us do have a roll about it's been all of us are goofy not all officer acting drunk what we're just trying to do is just get by. This bill to me targets. The card holding cannabis patient. We already have in this state laws that are already. Are in place for the intoxication of not just alcohol but other controlled substances so if you to look at this bill it does target canvass corporations. Because of this bill is apparent intent to target mobile cannabis patients then I ask you to vote no on this bill is not necessary to create new special arts laws for intoxication when there's already talks occasion laws in place. So please vote no the Committee in seventy thousand other people that are out there they're trying to get their medicine any anyway they can even when the state run short. We still tried to support our state. That's all I have to say any questions thank you Mr Robert the next person we have who signed up to speak against the bill is full with the full. You'll come forward state your name and then you may begin. I'm on. Your thank you madam chairman and members of this committee for allowing me to speak my name is Melissa fulls a spokesperson for Arkansas normal I'm a long time patient advocate as well as the patient myself. In two thousand sixteen over half of the voters in this state voted to approve the use of medical marijuana. Yet since two thousand seventeen. There's been a group of legislators that have continually written bills that attack harass demean and threaten patients. H. B. fifteen twenty five is one of these bills. It has the potential to severely harm over seventy thousand cannabis patients in the state. I'd like to go down each line of this bill and. Give you the reasons why you need to vote no on this. Number one be intoxicated due to the use of medical marijuana in the premises in public places. This is just another way to allow patients to be harassed and legally attacked and I appreciate the fact that officers should do their job right. But as someone who listens to a patient's day after day after day that call us there are some towns in this state with the police officers don't care if it's legal. We have had patients be arrested. Their product taken away from them their cars impounded having to hire legal counsel for nothing more than sitting in a car with each other there was for example there was a couple that met for lunch at work they couldn't go in because of COVID they got their lunch he said in the court was they were engaged he said in the car with their they were eating their lunch a police officer came he smelled cannabis they both had cannabis cards he said that they were trying to sell drugs what enough in there to sale they had a very small amount they were arrested her car was impounded it costs have a fortune when she went to court naturally she was let go because she was within her rights she did not get reimbursed for having her car impounded she did not get her medication back she did not get reimbursed for the legal fees that she was out. Patients are targeted every day in this state most officers are great about it they see your card they see you're doing right and they let you go but there are officers that will use this as an excuse to harass and attack patients that are doing what is their legal right. As we've talked about there's no way to test if you're intoxicated or not. T. H. C. can stay in your system with a urine test up to thirty days in a hair follicle test or blood test for several months. As a patient myself. I would not leave the home I don't use it except at night so I would never be intoxicated but should an officer decides to. Give me a hard time he could and he could set out I think she looked intoxicated. I would have no recourse because I would test positive. Many of our patients suffer from PTSD. There was a gentleman here Tuesday that wanted to speak that talked to me about his situation he's an Iraqi war veteran that suffers from severe PTSD and is in constant pain after having ten surgeries due to the injuries he sustained while he was deployed. He told me that their days and triggers that even if he's not Medicaid. He could appear intoxicated just by certain trigger. With this bill. An officer could observing and he too could be arrested he could spend time in jail he could be fine he could have legal fees not to mention the undue emotional pain and suffering that he would have to go through because at this. I'd like to also point out that if someone is using any other drug. Opioids muscle relaxers Ben's those antidepressants any other prescription drugs thank you legally be anywhere in public that they wish to be with no repercussions. Yet according to this bill a patient could not really even legally leave their home because some officer may say that they're intoxicated. Ladies and gentleman we are patients we are not criminals. Would you treat us any different from any other patient especially the fact that cannabis is safer and less addictive medicine than any of the ones that I just mentioned. Three transporting medical marijuana is greater than five ounces. The biggest problem with this yes it doesn't consider care givers. Many care givers have multiple patients. If they go to a dispensary to purchase for their patience they can have up to six patients they're going to be well over the limit of the five ounces so if they are stopped they are not with the dispensary or cultivation facility so they could be subject to fines arrest jail time for doing what they are legally allowed to do. And finally the transportation. This is already a federal crime and we carry federal penalties however I need you to consider. With the strong possibility of the more Act passing. And would probably pass this year Canibus would no longer be federally illegal yet with this bill. It would attack a person if they came into our state that had previously purchased cannabis it would be like telling them that they could bring an aspirin or vitamin or cold medicine into the State. This bill can call such undue harm to our over seventy thousand patients. It makes is terrified to leave our homes afraid we will find that officer. It decides that he doesn't like the fact that we can use medical marijuana and wants to use us as an example. I'm asking you please please do not give this a do pass it will do nothing but harm and attack those patients that are trying to live a better life thank you very much and I would be glad to answer any questions you might have. Thank you Miss folks we see no questions thank you for your testimony we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representative Lundstrum you're recognized close for your bill thank you colleagues. This bill does not attack harassed or demean anyone medical marijuana has its place and does a lot of good I'm not arguing that with anyone. I have constituents that use medical marijuana. This is an agreed upon bill. This clearly states the announcmenet. That you can transport so no one's going to be harassed for having the proper amounts. Clear transportation is important so that someone can move around and have the right amount law enforcement is asking for that that's important. No one's going to be target assuming officers are looking for someone to harass is simply not true police officers have plenty to do. Plenty to do but when they're asking for parameters that's a good thing. When we talk about intoxication all drugs can be intoxication issues we just got through listening to pretty sad testimony about people that were hit. Hit and run accidents. We have no idea what they were intoxicated with. It's a drug it's a serious drug or it wouldn't be so important. I'm simply asking that we put some teeth into the laws that we passed in given law enforcement. The right tools and with that I would appreciate a good vote. Members represent Lundstrum his clothes for her bill what are the wishes of the committee. President Crawford you're recognized. We have a. We have a motion do pass on the floor is there any discussion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it bill has. Call the roll. Representative Shepherd represent Shepherd. Represent Ferguson represented Ferguson. Represent flowers represent flowers represent next. Enternext represent Richmond. Yes representative Cavenaugh. Representative Cavenaugh representative Gazaway representative Gazaway representative airy. Yes represent Crawford. Yes representative Scott represent Scott represent rep represent late. Yes represent Clowney represent Clowney representative Cooper represent Cooper representative Richardson reckon representative Richardson representative Collins. No representative Hudson. No representa McAuliffe. No representive Underwood representive Underwood. Representative met. Representive Underwood you that we didn't hear you. Yes represent under which represents Smith. President Smith. The bill is fail. Thank you colleagues I appreciate your time. Members let's turn to Senate bill three fifty seven representative for what you've been patiently waiting. So come on down. Members Senate bill three fifty seven. Represent Boyd you may begin present your bill. Thank you madam chair I appreciate shall give them an opportunity to present this bill this afternoon so I need to start with the history this subtilis brought to me by an attorney that lives in my district is one of my constituents and so one of the things in this strikeout languages Bella Vista village that's what caught his attention and so but as he looked at the can the. The place is not overly makes sense you have to have a map of the GIS in order to figure out where where you work so this came out of the Senate as a bipartisan vote I think there was one no vote if I remember correctly but it there's no no no opposition and that's really all I have to say about it. Members are there any questions of representative Boyd. Seeing the questions we have no one who has signed up to speak for against the bill representative Boyd you're recognized close for your bill. Thank you I'm would appreciate somebody give me a do pass and I'm close from a bill thank you representative boards close for his bill we have a motion to do pass by representative Ferguson is there any discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed say no motion carries your bill is passed in the are sorry that you had to wait so long but thank you for your patience. Representing the color you're recognized to present House Bill sixteen fifty one. Thank you madam chair. House bill sixty sixteen fifty one currently sexual assault second and third require the state beyond a reasonable doubt to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a child under the age of fourteen who is secretary who is a sexual assault victim. Isn't married to the defendant. This bill removes this nonsensical emotionally harmful element it's nonsensical because children under fourteen cannot Merion Arkansas it's emotionally traumatizing to ask a child victim on the stand if he or she is married to the person who sexually assaulted him or her who can sometimes even be his or her relatives and with that I'll take any questions. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill representing the call you're recognized close for your bill I'm close to make a motion to pass. Members we have a motion to do pass on the floors there any discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you have passed your bill thank you madam chair thank you committee members please turn to House Bill sixteen fifty three. We have an amendment. It's being. Hester. For you representative McCullough you're recognized to present your amendment thank you madam chair. This amendment in my bill I had a when you apply to get off the registry as a sex offender you have to have an assessment within five years and in my previous bill I was asking that you have one within one year after conversation with the department of corrections and the possible burdens that might encounter they might encounter because of that amended section this section two part of the bill and remove the language that requires an assessment be done within a year of the request so that whole section has has been removed and I'll take any questions if there are any numbers there are there any questions on the amendment. Seeing no questions are you moving to production of your amendment representing the call yes some clothes and move to pass on the amendment members we have motion to adopt the amendment all in favor please say aye. Any oppose the amendment has been adopted you may now present your bill as amended thank you madam chair the on sixteen fifty three the current law allows a convicted sex offender to petition the sentencing court to terminate their obligation to register as a sex offender after fifteen years of registration has lapsed this bill requires the sex offender to petition the court that originally convicted them because that court has all the facts it has all of the paperwork it has all the prosecutor information all the victim information and with that I'll take any questions. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill you're recognized close for your bill thank you madam chair I'm close to make a motion do pass as amended. Members we have a motion to do pass as amended on the floor is there any discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed the ayes have it congratulations you have passed your bill thank you madam chair thank you Committee. Absentee Ferguson. I would ask that you come and take the chair please. Members if you will turn to House Bill seventeen twenty seven house bill seventy. Okay okay German Dalby or you're ready to present your bill I am thank you represent Ferguson members this is a very simple bill that has come to the attention of the department of corrections in the prosecutors that oftentimes what happens in a correctional facility. They will be splashed with bodily. Function this is the best way to go this late time in the day with this will be will make that that that will be now a criminal for it she would think that we would have that but there had been some questions as to whether or not we had a statute that would address that particular issue this is really a very straight forward so that in the event that someone does that becomes a Class Y. felony if they are doing that to an officer that is in uniform and there is also an emergency clause with that I'll be happy to answer any questions. Representative. Thank. Thank you Mr chair of. Manager person is the the correctional institution here the facilities that include county jails resistors for IDC. State or local correctional facility thank you. Thank you Mr thank you. And we'll question. There's no one signed up to speak for against the bill German all the are you ready to close for you will I am thank you I'm close for the bill I would make a motion to pass thank you what's of this motion do pass the bill all in favor. Okay I. I'll close may. German W. bill is passed thank you thank you members. Members let's turn next to house bill seventeen thirty one representive Underwood you're recognized. Members this bill has an amendment that bill is. Estep to you here. Mentor whether passing that may I ask for Mr needs method on the table yes you. Well the amendments being passed out I know it's been a long day I appreciate it that's the price we're paying because we're going to take off Tuesday afternoon but when we come back from spring break on the thirtieth. Bring your dinner with you because it's going to be dinner and seeing on the ground that day we have at my count at least twenty bill set up for that day. At that is that sometimes the nature of judiciary. So just the opposite the potluck. All right now that we have represented Crawford you're recognized you have a question of I was just going to make a motion that you bring chick fillet next week. But will the chair will consider that will you'll see what we can do about having something for you but I do anticipate knowing that our floor sessions will get longer. We may very well be here a little while but no fault of ours it's just that sometimes people do weight to the better it better deter end to run their bills with that being said representive Underwood sorry to take any time commuting Amendment has now been passed out if you'd like to speak to the amendment you're recognized thank you madam chair after I filed this bill that turning general's office contacted me with some suggestions on some changes to be made so basically what I did was I accepted their changes and I just it was easier to just. Scrap my last bill in this thing insert there's entirely so basically previously the bill is focused on five four six of two and that might now most the changes are five four six sixteen which I can address want to present the bill if that's okay and I make a motion to adopt the amendment. Members we have a motion to adopt the amendment to house bill seventeen thirty one. All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed motion here's you may present your bill as amended thank you measure the committee an Arkansas capital trials have or split the two separate phases a guilty phase in the sentencing phase recently at Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that under current law when a mistrial occurs in the sentencing phase an entire new trial as necessary even though an error did not occur in the guilty verdict in that case just Womack is stated that the General Assembly needed to review or he suggested that we were review the law and permit a new sentencing jury in the event of a mis trial so if a mistrial occurs in the sentencing stage this bill would permit the guilty verdict to remain it without having to have a new trial for that stage of a proceeding I just a few reasons why which passes bill now what to give at the Smith opportunity to to address a few more points this bill would help protect the finance rights to a fair trial without invalidating the jerk the work of the jury it also shields against unnecessary delays and wasted judicial resources and help ensure that the public sees the judicial system must bear protects the integrity and reputation reputation of the judicial system since the anything at our own interests of sure this the this I won't get into the facts of the case because it's ongoing but but the reason for this bill is in a capital murder trial man County we had in the sentencing phase a state's witness leap from his table attacked the defendant a mistrial was declared and upon reviewing the law that the judge rule not only Mr on the sentencing phase but also in guilt that one up on appeal the Arkansas Supreme Court affirm the judge's ruling and in his dissent justice Womack pointed out the need for a a change to the statute appreciate representive Underwood working on as well as the attorney general's office as as weight and I think we've got a good language here so in six oh two which is just the the truck that the statute that controls how the trial procedure works in the capitol. Capital murder sentencing phase of we put in there that that procedure applies except as in five dash four dash six sixteen and if you turn over there they dropped in section two and that were that situation relates that language relates to the situation that can occur which is admittedly is rare when a a mistrial occurs in the sentencing phase of a capital murder trial but when it occurs it is a catastrophic event and so it gives the what what I believe has always been the intent of the legislature which is certainly to give judges the latitude to declare a mistrial if they believe the facts warranted but in the sentencing phase since we obviously have bifurcated jury trials the sentencing phase it's it's its own thing And so it make sure that that that error only applies to the sentencing phase and will not go back and invalidate the guilty verdict itself so again doesn't deprive the defendant of any appeal rights that he or she already has I think what it does is ensure that the error if it is declared by the circuit judge applies only to the phase that it actually had an effect and so under the current law even though the error that that occurred in the sentencing phase had no bearing on Gil whatever the law required that the entire case be reversed in retried rather than maintaining the guilty verdict while re trying that the sentencing phase so I'll be happy to take your questions if I can be more clear on that. Representative Collins you're recognized for a question. Thank you so can you guys tell me what in the event that this verdict has come down is the sentence of life without parole is that the only alternative basically no so it's is it be it would be the same as if the sentencing went up on appeal and was reversed by the Supreme Court so both options are then on the table just like it had been reversed by the Supreme Court so now for example if as I'm sure you're aware of that the case comes back on appeal of the prosecutor can petition the circuit court to impose life without parole or empaneling new sentencing jury so the same language is used here so both both punishments are our options okay. Members any other questions. Seeing the questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill we do have Mr Rosenzweig for informational purposes only only Mr Rosenzweig if you can be less than a couple of minutes. Jefferson's liked Arkansas socius criminal defense lawyers but more to the point I was the defense lawyer in the case that Mister Smith stalking. Of the R. and R. I have a suggestion reason I signed up as informational I have a suggestion to that would improve this bill and the improvement is to permit. Not required but permit the Arkansas Supreme Court in the appropriate circumstances to allow the appeal of the gill Guilford First well for the empaneling of the new sentencing jury in a resentencing trial or in a sentencing trial that is held separately the jury is told that guilt is not an issue it's already been decided he is deemed guilty in your choices or wife without parole or the death penalty of the problem is is in the situation for instance we have If if you impaneled a sentence a new sentencing jury without appealing Gilbert. then and if it turns out you didn't have a good Gilbert then the sentencing hearing is for not because it would be premised on an incorrect understanding of the case so my suggestion which I communicated to all the sponsors of the bill would be to permit not required but permit the Arkansas Supreme Court to allow allow an appeal first and the way it would work is that is that the defendant if he wanted to or the state presumably if you want to to we would ask the Supreme Court for permission to appeal of and of you don't want to E. I didn't want to call it a petition for writ of certiorari already for two reasons one is that that has a specific higher standard for cognizant bility then just a regular repeal and secondly. It has a there's case law that says if you take it up on a researcher ari and lose you cannot appeal on the point. So I wanted to avoid that anyway that is my suggestion to improve this bill and it would work it to it would enhance judicial economy and no I would also point out that this was the resolution of this particular case that justice Womack did urge on the. Heard showing the of. Disposition of the case. Thank you Mr president for thank you. Representative Hudson I have a question. Thank you madam chair and I think I'd like your Mr was intact business writing also from Mr Smith on this because when you were laying out your proposed revision or improvement my thought was the opposite that the judicial economy issue would actually be worse and because then you've got the same case going up and back twice as opposed to all at once but I wonder to I mean I recognize that when you all are doing criminal trials you certainly get the benefit of more expedition and those of us in the civil courts but my assumption is that these appeal still take time to work their way through the system and then back down and so how do you. I see this as promoting economy end of what we do with this criminal defendant who is in limbo on one and then may have to go all the way back through the entire process again on the sentencing portion. Well there's there's no easy answer there's no easy answer to any of this of and that's why my proposal was to let the Supreme Court decide whether an appeal would be cognizable on a case by case basis. In other words thank you it would be the proposal the also I would make is that the Supreme Court may permit not much permit but may permit and you would have to apply to the Supreme Court so here's why I want to appeal first and they can say yes no or whatever it depends on the particular case for instance if I would my guess is is that if you if you could make a demonstration that you have a lot of really good points that were going to affect the guilt phase first and then there was a substantial likelihood that you're going to they were going to have to reverse the guilt phase might as well get that out of the way first in other cases may not this would just given my proposal would just give them the discretion but we're not require. Thank you Mr Smith did you have anything to add on that. So in turn your microphone back on please. Never can figure myself in the red and green don't make sense in my brain so I think that if the if if things were static then I think Mr Rosen's wags position would would make a lot of sense that they're not because as you pointed out witnesses age moved police officers do the same as well as medical examiners so the problem the problem with the the stopping and doing that is is that the state's case gets worse over time in my opinion I think I think that the prejudice would result in the state the event is not prejudice because he's gonna get is get his appeal on the the the whole enchiladas or when it when it goes up on appeal I would point out as dissent justice woman did point out that in in the specific facts of Thorez that he would have granted the writ for for the people in that case I think that's probably related to how many times have been been up and back in the unique facts that happened here so the reason I would say that we wouldn't do it that way is because evidence does change and I think judicial economy favors finality so it would make sense to me for it if it happened for the judge in you know three weeks however long it is to empaneling other jury the next day for that matter and just proceed with the sentencing in the case itself I would go up when it's done the other the other thing that that troubles me and miss rose Mr Rosenzweig and I spoke about this for a few days and and I think that the other any balls and we don't do this in any other criminal case so every other criminal case goes up with the exception of you know the interlocutory appeals and things like that once the case is over so I would like creating that for for this instance and I I I recognize that there are specific facts of our case that in the opinion. That may have caused the exception for why they would have wanted to consider the guilty people at that time I do think when when you when you are making law I would think that using that using that exception could make a bad law so I think this is the easiest and simplest way to do it and I also think it it favors the finality of the case and when the witnesses and the the evidence all that is there and fresh it's easier to just proceed that it is to wait because again in any case it could be that a sentencing juries sitting and a court later could could reverse the Gilbert that exist in any case I realize here we've been peddling a new jury but I still think finality favors going and doing it without allowing of the guilt appeal first. Seeing no other questions we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill representive Underwood you're recognized to close for your bill thank you madam chair I am close from bill and I would ask for a motion right make a motion do pass as amended. Members we have a motion to do pass as amended on the floor is there any discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any posts a none of the ayes have it the motion carries congratulations you passed your bill the member of the committee members we have one more bill to hear this afternoon house bill seventeen thirty two representative Collins you're recognized present your bill there is a fiscal impact statement with the bill so members you may want to take a look at that. As we go. The president Collins you're recognized thank you manager this bill bumps up the classification of voyeurism and video voyeurism offences when they're committed against a child under fourteen from a Class dita Class C. felony. two reasons to bring the bill first of all throughout the criminal code particularly with sexual offenses we distinguish between crimes against children in crimes against adults fourteen often being that cut off and so this puts that same distinction and for these offenses the second reason is that classy is just a better fit for these severe crimes up spying on a child's body for sexual gratification is a sexual abuse it's an invasion of privacy some cases the basis for child **** it's a sexual trauma they can be very difficult in particular for a child or overcome sometimes cannot be overcome the bill came from a prosecutor who ran into an issue where she felt like she needed a higher range to make sure that the punishment fit the crime and she couldn't get there so classy I believe better fits this particular crime and I'm happy to take any questions. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill you're recognized to close for your bill I'm closing I move to pass members we have a motion to do pass on the floors or any discussion. All in favor please say aye. All opposed please say no the ayes have it congratulations you're patched your bill the members we are concluded for the day have a excellent weekend see