Judiciary Committee - Senate

The next week. Have not set a time yet. We have a more bills for that meeting besides whatever we don't get to today we are going to favor two minute bills. And bills that we have people that have traveled here to testify for and against of that doesn't mean agency folks that are here that can come back easily of but folks are to travel from other places so with that in mind. Of so that means we may be skipping over some things are hopefully coming back to them. Of and with that I am going to start of with the. Senator Flippo. And I believe that's a House bill. What number. One one zero zero four yes Sir. Timers on Senator Flippo thank you Mr chairman thank you members so house bill ten for some you can by the way of representative Fortner so what printed this bill was city bill in Marion County which is in both of our districts the Bill to splash back two years ago last summer we had a a convicted paedophile that was showing up and taking pictures of children and sure what's called showed up with a copy of the law and German there the note said that there is nothing so that he could be a splash pad we got the prosecutor said or something a technicality he's you know he's correct so the Marion County had to pay to have a you know a deputy their presence whenever this guy would go to the water park into all this bill does it cleans up that you know that oversight and if you look on it starting on one twenty six just says a defined water park and that's language of splash pad and aquatic activities for children and so that just kind of covers swimming pools any aquatic facilities as along with a splash pad. Were convicted sex offenders may not be present. Committee not that I think you would with all of the chair's remarks keep you from asking any questions that you think apartment. Questions from the committee. Hearing none is there anyone here from the autistic for against saying none Senator Flippo would are you closing your bill I'll close my bill. Mostly passenger Garner second presenter Stubblefield any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed congradulations Senator Flippo you have passed your bill. Representative Dalby or yours two minute bills. Okay. House Bill fifteen fifteen. Yes. Fifteen fifty you're recognized thank you Mr chair members of the committee house fifty house bill fifteen fifty is the bill that you see every session regarding the salaries of District Court judges of personnel for the various district courts throughout the state this bill was sent out to all those in entities early on we've made any kind of corrections is requested and be happy take any questions. Senator Ballinger. No question. Okay. Give the committee a minute since there's several pages here. Thank you what we're just come from those disagreed upon point everybody before and this is kind of cool to find an agreement from something I'm missing this is promulgated out of of the District Court section of this spring court over in the Justice Building and each year or each session they get it together these are the how the cities and counties handle their district court's. And they send it out for any comments any additions or corrections that those cities or counties may wish to have and then they put it in there okay so I mean I'm looking because is someplace in my district is reducing the amount of salary The Clerk can have by about half but it looks like if you're saying that's agreed upon their voice fine with that I'll be fine with this one make sure I don't get here next week that were cut as much pay by having this what that the answers would you tell me what what pay yes ma'am I'm I'm unless I miss read it's like page to come up Calhoun County District Court Clerk shall receive a and or selling not less than twelve thousand or more than twenty four thousand maybe they're just cut out the twenty four to actually go higher net maybe I misread and and some of that is true Senator what's happening is different counties are raising their pay scale and so they're taking out that upper limit. Okay perfect good deal as by mixing thank you Mr. At. Representative Dalby was there a rhyme or reason behind this that you're aware of. No your honor I mean. Man I I have doomed to myself for sure. No Mister chair. Yeah as a judge with all the judges watching you I'm really don't want to call it I'm closed Mr. Is there anyone here speak for against. Seeing none of. The representative to close for a bill yes any action from the Committee. Motion to pass from Senator Garner. Second from Senator Hendren. All any discussion hearing none all for the bill signify by saying aye promotion of wine. All against motion carried congratulations represent all the pastor bill thank you thank you Mr chair thank you members of the committee. And your next bill is house bill sixteen forty five your work recognized to present your bill member's house bill sixteen forty five is simply a bill that's allowing for civil actions we have criminal sections already for people who share intimate images without permission and this is allowing for civil damages against someone who shares an intimate image without someone's permission that's really all the bill does. There are exceptions if you have. You know family that kind of thing. Questions from the committee. Senator are thank you just second criminal code and just basically take the same kind elements put in the civil code correct okay and and it describes consent pretty. Narrowly so yes. Any other questions for the committee. Hearing none is there anyone here to speak for against the bill. See non representative already close for your bill I am close from bill and ask for motion to do pass. Committee. Do pass from Senator Hendren second from center rights any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations represent over your past your bill thank you Mr chair thank you members of the committee. Representive. Hawk's does does your bill fall within those parameters. House Bill fourteen forty nine. Yes Sir thank you Mr thank you recognized for that your bill represents a house bill fourteen forty nine was brought to me by what my journeys misstated turning Conway he said that he often times as clients to come to him who have smallest states and for them to open up a checking account or any mechanism to receive funds so often times when their loved one passes the receive checks in the name of this state and they can't do anything with them to House Bill fourteen forty nine will give them an easy mechanism to be able to open up an account at a bank so whenever the checks come in they will be able to deposit those and not have to hold on to them to jump through a whole bunch of legal hoops to make that happen so everybody's on board I talk with the banks and and they're good with it and I've not had any opposition but it it's a good bill and could help out a lot of families with small states going through hard times. I'm open for any questions. Questions from the committee. Seeing none is there anyone here to speak for against the bill. The same none of representative are you closing your bill I'm close for the bill. Any action for so do pass from senator Johnson. Circumcenter Hendren any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations represent a hawk to pastor bill thank you Mr thank you Committee. Centers of Sullivan are you here for a two minute bill what what bill would that be. Fourteen twenty four Brandt Smith okay House Bill fourteen twenty four Committee. Senator so when your will give us just a moment to pull that bill and you're recognized. You senator Dan Sullivan just twenty one. Members is pretty short bill it just adds the District Court to the judges that can provide an oath to the to fix a list bear that's listed and I'm not a list on the back of the page there so dispatch District Court judges told us. Thanks any questions from the committee. C. none anyone here to speak for against. See non center so when are you close for however the tyrants bill. This is your bill to of centers closed motion to pass calendar second from center Johnson a discussion hearing none all for the motion signup saying aye. All against motion carried congratulates sexual when your pastor bill. Senator Gilmore's your bill fall under those parameters. If it's a bill I'm thinking of it may not. I ask particular grades to join me also wrestles well. Amber's Senator Gilmore for house bill eleven fourteen I think I visited with several you about this we're here last time you all wanted to see some language change we made that change and it is now reflected on page two line ones we've capped that at fifty so with that I'll take any questions. I have one of testimony we heard last time on this bill was that in we appreciate to capped fund chairpersons cap but that in fact that you if there was an intention to lower fees is that still correct that that is my understanding on what secretary grades comment further yes Sir and what would you recognize yourself for the record please secretary Sullivan gracing Care corrections yes Sir soon Senator Clark in that language generally is referenced on page one line thirty one and thirty two would provide for an of by by rule the division can establish a individualized assessment process that could tie fees to risk level could fees to the services being received by that offender so lower with lower fees lower services receive lower fees potentially also it provides in the following sub six shin for a reduction in fees in the event that a merger C. is declared under them Arkansas Emergency Services Act of nineteen seventy three. Okay but this one for the record that the. That the idea behind this was not only that we can increase but that we that we would like to decrease fees yes Sir and we have begun the process of reviewing our supervision fees system and expect to bring a proposal to the board of corrections problem most likely the latter part of the dish this year for a restructuring of our fee system yet we're not there yet but we are working toward that process. Thank you other questions from the committee. The none of his or anyone here to speak for against the bill. Say none of Senator Gilmore are you close for your bill I am Mr. Senator is closed. motion do pass from center us. Second from Senator Hendren. All for the motion any discussion. Harry none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All against motion carried congratulations Senator Gilmore you have passed your bill is amended. Senator Wallace does your bill fit those parameters. What those what we're looking at. All. What's the bill sixty. I'm sorry to get the number. House Bill total for committee. What you're recognized to present your bill thank you Mr chair members this is already a good act good law we just will make a little better if you look it's really about. Board's change we're moving out of removing online twenty six and twenty seven the terms law enforcement officer firefighter or emergency medical tech. And we're concerning the ward and individual. Instead it what we have is our law enforcement officers are our first responders we'll see some horrible things in their life and their soldiers already know it's very difficult for. You to talk about a horrible situation unless you're talking to a member who has been with us before fellow soldier or in this case fellow law enforcement officer or firefighter. This opens up and allows retired law enforcement officers or retired firefighters if they are certified it's a forty hour certification what's it going to that they can serve. As a as a person who can Council insert down talk with that young law enforcement officer that young firefighter. This season pretty rough times yes it's a it's a really good law already and this will make a little bit better because it opens it up where the the folks that are retired can talk to our younger officers no cost involved is all volunteer. And I stand by for questions Sir. Questions from the committee. Seeing none is there anyone here to speak for or against the bill. See non essentials for you close for your bill sure I closed. Motion to pass from Senator Rice second from Senator Stubblefield up all for the any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion Kerry congratulations as well as your pastor bill. If anyone places last few minutes I think passing abilities thing there will. What. Everybody who's gonna be the first one at the bustle. Senator Tucker I think you're the next one to get a hold of me or is this your but those parameters. Also you confirm with Mr Rosenzweig so. Okay. What bill Senator Tucker. House Bill fourteen thirty seven. But a call in this. an amendment on the bill yes Sir just admit the sponsor. Motional the Amendment. Ste motion from Senator Stubblefield. Second from center Johnson any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations Senator Tucker your bill is amended you're recognized to present your bill thank you Mr chairman and members of the committee this has to do with published for pay websites that post booking photographs or mugshots of people online so this does not address law enforcement anyway or any legitimate median anyway but in it with the internet these days that there are websites. That require someone to pay them in order to take their mug shot down and this is usually after someone has already served their time pay their fines fees restitution or whatever in this website has their mug shot up as they're trying to reenter society and get a job or whatnot and they want it taken down and they'll contact the website and they'll say you have to pay is five hundred dollars in order to take your mug shot down and so what this does that's effectively here extortion really what this bill does is it's if if you accept request or require the payment of a fee to take down a motion mugshot thing you have to do three things one is Lester contact information on the website second is if someone contacts you to to have their photo taken down you have to provide a receipt of that so that he can just linger forever in the third of someone does send you that request them within five business days you have to honor that and take the mug shot down represent Collins tells me that the chiefs of police and state police support this in the press association is is also okay with it because again it doesn't affect law enforcement or any legitimate media or a neighborhood association or anybody who is is having mugshots for a legitimate reason the ideas just these. Extortion based websites that make it harder for people to reenter society and get a job is is to at least try to put an end to that practice to the extent people request to have their mugshots taken down and that's it I'd be happy to take any questions Senator Ballinger you're recognized. Thank you Mr and I appreciate those actually at a the a friend who got caught up in this and and the the problem with that it is it it's at yeah I think that you're doing all that we can do in in the state through this. My my question is most of these are probably outside the state of Arkansas maybe even overseas and and the problem is like when he was running into is it at one site that he'd pay and then then it would pop up on another site and then basically have multiple websites the the so that extortion based in every instance of the guy's going to pay then then they'll want to keep doing it but basically no mechanism to address that perfectly but what we're doing far as Arkansas Code is basically everything we we can do that's my understanding yes Sir yeah thank. Any other questions from the committee. C. nine is there anyone here to testify for against. Seeing none Clark's Senator Tucker you closing your bill yes Mister chairman Preciado give a. Do pass from Senator Stubblefield second from center Johnson off any discussion here none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed regulation Senator Tucker you a path to bill thank you Mr chair thank you members the committee. Senator Beckham of I think you were next in the room ugh does your bill fit printer do you have a bill. Does it put the parameters two minutes. We'll come back to you. Scott is here to yes and I don't from three represent Scott's bill does not meet the two minutes. Wait. To the. Last. We can texture while I will do my best to get to or Alexis he was a really short bills which would get him out Senator Hammer I think you were next to you and by Senator Hester can decide who is next. Okay. Okay. If you think they can participate in a two minute bill. We look at the SP three await for Senator Hammer I'd like to do three oh age first Mr. Many Senate bill three away. And I believe there's an amendment that's been engrossed into it this is one that we had regarding requiring the state to offer victim's sexual salts choice require persecution Committee a sexual assault crime to take H. of the test we got with Jeff publishes still good prosecuting members may my guest introduce yourself for the record yes well groovers lane county civil attorney. Anyway we got with Jeff and I think we're greed upon on this amendment that is satisfied the concerns of the some of the members had last time and also satisfies him and his concerns and be glad to take any questions or let the will speak to any questions. Yes thank you guys for working with us on this so we we do work with Mr rises wag we we ran by local prosecutors are in sync any Chris Walton he's fine with the language talked with the department of justice that define what this language would still be eligible to get that the grant funds and we've been working with a group of folks that were involved involved in while working for for victims rights and so they are supportive of the language as well so we hope that you know we've alleviating any concerns that were brought up at that previous committee meeting. The. Of. The. There is no way for this to be an end run around getting someone's DNA. Of. If Is I wouldn't think so I mean that the law already allows for prosecutors to request for this to be done this is a specific to allowing the victim to allow that to the HIV test so I don't I don't I would think that would be an issue. Other questions from the committee. Senator Stubblefield. Thank you Mr thank you Mr most of September can you give an example of why someone who's been a victim of the sexual assault. would even have to have a short one with a user choice. I mean the same to me like that will be obviously we won't. I can answer questions we have somebody that's here to testify that can tell exactly what this bill is necessary based on the scenario that you're asking about that chair's discretion. But in brief it's because in this case the victim requested it prosecuting attorney for lack of better term didn't get it done in a timely manner was not going to get it done in a timely manner which prohibit her prohibited her from being able to get that test and so this would create that pathway forward to where the victim could ask it and we'll know prosecutors are overloaded things happen it's not a bad accusation is just reality this make sure that it can be done. But there is somebody can contest five but I'd probably go beyond my two minute limit the chair well it just seems odd to me that they would. You know I have the ward's choice in that in that language. That that's all I Mr. I'm sorry Michael we can bring this up centrist Oakville. Yeah that would be fine I would like to I'd like to use explanation one that. Those words are in there this isn't maybe I address that first what which specific words and one for jewels in the time. In the subtitle. The choice so right now under the current law the victim wouldn't have the choice right now the only person that could requested on behalf of the victim is the prosecuting attorney in so what this bill would would do would allow the victim to also request the HIV test okay I understand what you're saying. In some further context of sorry internal I'm good I'm good. Senator Ballinger. Any other questions from the committee. Hearing none is there anyone here to testify for or against the bill. Meeks families online are you basis or are you Amy Stanley would you come forward please don't can stay there should come to the. Side over here. My name is Amy Stanley I am a survivor of sexual assault and other violent crimes committed in Miller county Arkansas and. My case went through a lengthy trial and at the beginning my assailant was caught within a week and I asked the detective my immediate concern was please have him tested for HIV. The detective referred me to the prosecutor I asked several times I have it in email and like the senator said it's not an accusation it just didn't happen she's over loaded I understand that but because no one did it for me I had to do it myself I had to go to the clinic and go through the embarrassment humiliation the expense not once but twice because when you're tested for HIV you have to repeat the test even if it's negative because they need to be sure that so I had this law been in effect back in twenty fifteen when those crimes were committed against me I would have the power to ensure that it got done and I would not have been put through more trauma. You open for questions. The Stanley Cup of questions yes Sir. Senator Garner you're recognized thank you I greatly appreciate testimony and this is kind of what I thought last time is no. There's certain drugs that can help prevent HIV if you get a certain amount of time absolutely and people thought why don't you just go take anyway but As You after describe you had a traumatic experience at a hundred different things on your plate trying this I really don't take a drug or not when you may not need it sounds like a extra burden internet critical time if you have the test that says there is no H. I. V. that's takes no thing off your plate would you agree with that statement I would agree it's it's one less retirement is ation and speaking as a victim and on behalf of victims of the state of Arkansas. Anything you can do for us is very much appreciated unless you've been through the trauma you have no idea how many aspects there are so this may seem like a small thing to some but I'm telling you that it's huge and it matters and it's vital yes ma'am thank you so much. Senator Stubblefield. Yes ma'am what would. Would you be in favor of breaking this mandatory. Yes. That's what I was getting at what what what was your senate. For someone to commit a sexual assault on an individual. You might violate the attorney answer that question and I'll weigh in if necessary you're okay with that yeah okay sure there are absolutely obviously we wouldn't be opposed to it being mandatory. We just. That that that is what the will of the committee would want to be and sponsors I mean this this is brought to our attention for purposes of a grant and the department of justice is found this language I would think that they would be fine with mandatory language as well as someone is willing to commit this type of this type of heinous crime. I feel like they are to be forced to have to take in a job he said this that's my feeling center I'm I would share the sentiments with you but we are a point where we have a common agreement to defy alter from it at this point I think we have time to introduce legislation that could take that up as a separate matter this is this is This is necessary for a pathway for two dollars to help offset the expense on the victim and while I appreciate what you're offering and be glad to work with you can run it I really would like to get this one out here because we've got Jeff on board and everybody on board center and I'm not I'm not suggestion you amended bill now okay I'm just saying that later on we need to look at this and make this a certain when. Papers to all this bill now I would agree with your opinion. Other questions from the committee. C. nine thank you the standard for your testimony thank you Sir anyone else here to speak for against. C.. See non center Hammer you close for your bill yes Sir I think testimony gave you good reason why we need this bill so I would appreciate a favorable do pass of the committee please. Wells motion of the passing Senator Ballinger second from Senator Stubblefield any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations and remember your past your bill thank you Mr members of the committee. The Senator Hammer that was a good bill. Not a two minute bill. Are your other car which to me is. I didn't hear the stipulations of the agreement I'm sorry Mr. We'll we'll we'll try to get everybody but if if we got too many bills or get them out as your other bill two minutes I think so but I don't know Mr I can tell you what it is and we go from there I'll step to the side if I need to or what is it it's Senate bill four ninety four I've got Roger Smith here who can help I can give you in thirty your words or less what it does. I don't know Rogers or anything less than two minutes but I said I could. And of. Go ahead. Senate bill four ninety four make sure they'll certified key word certified law enforcement officers including university police have the same protection under the law including both public and private institutions of higher education I believe this might be something that was done previously in this is to make sure that private universities you have a police departments which certified law enforcement officers are afforded the same protections of all others and that's what the bill does Mr. Specific only to the private public the universities in their forces. Questions from the committee. You've already stated it but we're extending qualified immunity. There are two those under one law enforcement agencies for and certified law enforcement officers employed by a public or private institution of higher education. Who currently don't have. Qualified immunity is a. That's correct. I'm probably gonna want to hear from Mr Smith why we need to do that was center Ballinger your question. It in this maybe thank you Mr but this may be good for Mister Smith to to address as well I I don't I don't have a problem with the bill but I do think that while we're running through bills quickly I don't want to get to the point where when we're dealing with munity what we're saying is you know this the state cannot be sued a qualified immunity it's a little bit different minute there there is an exception assign absolute immunity and and we would probably need our law enforcement officers whether they're they're you know working for the city or their work for the university to have qualified immunities of bills probably if a probably it's a good thing and and I'm and I'm supportive but what I would say is we as a body we should be extremely careful about how it out easily we expand the the community because what we're saying is that the citizen can't go to court and get redress for the actions of the individual so. I'm not I don't want second speak against this but I just don't want to say let's not be flippant about expanding our the community. That's and and they can press that button but you know I'm not was that ended with what your yeah would you agree. Represents of the former represent as well thank you Mr chairman that Roger Smith I represent the eternal order of police We have a couple of universities maybe more than two that are private for example washed Baptist they have a full fledged police department all their officers are certified they work closely with all the local law enforcement being state police city police six cetera and for whatever reason in the in the past they just didn't have the same level of immunity that all other police officers do so that's all it does the request came from also The New medical school in Sebastian County they have also the same type of problem with their force they need to have the same amenities everybody else does because they don't work just on campus they also work within the community. And by the way does not in any way change anything about current qualified immunity it doesn't. Didn't do a thing to that. Senator Ballinger. So it does address qualified immunity or else you don't need the bill I get expands it to the people that that that apparently are not covered today yes Sir yeah. Thanks. Other questions from the committee. Hearing none of those anyone and everyone here to speak for or against the bill. See none Senator hammer you close your bill yes Sir I just create a good vote thank you Mr. Pleasure of the Committee. Motion to pass center Johnson. Second from Senator Ballenger any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations Senator Hammer you have passed your bill thank you Mr chair members of the committee. You know go pull the wool over either to our. Okay center as. House bill twelve seventy six members. Give us a moment to find the bill. Senator Hester you are recognized to present your bill. He's deferring to me I guess we like Tom Brady we got two minutes of. I'm here that I'm Dan issue I'm here and capacity as a member of the Arkansas sentencing commission that is the independent commission that has a. to prosecutors to defense attorneys three judges and to citizens on it and you pull the mock up closer police. And. And that committee of the Commission excuse me voted to have to have this bill presented to you and in in real short let's say a person is arrested and for arson and actually County and in January the arrested for burglary in Baxter County in February and then in March they're resting Crawford County for a criminal mischief all felonies but let's say the Crawford County pleads first the Baxter County please second so then you've got the Ashley County case arson case coming in third we wanted to be uniform on how we keep these records it's it's very critical about criminal history scores and and for the fall within the sentencing greeted and. This law would make when you come to the Ashley County case was actually filed first that would count the Crawford County case and the Baxter County case in calculating that the criminal history if that makes sense. Our center has reopened questions yes. Any questions from the committee. Senator Ballinger. I just gonna say that this seems far fetched do you have that but a lot of times what you have is a person who completely melts down and and ends up finding themselves that you know they they're spent basically spent like spinning out of control so we'll end up in multiple jurisdictions that actually happens on a fairly regular basis right unfortunately yes Sir yeah. Other questions from the committee. Hearing none is there anyone here to speak for against the bill. See none Senator Hester clothes for your bill I'm closed. Do pass from center rights. Second from center Johnson any discussion. none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed most Kerry congratulations and treasury affect your bill. Thank you fifteen eighty eight members house bill fifteen eighty eight. I'll go ahead and speak of it again I'm Daniel shoe but now more and the hat of the Arkansas prosecuting attorneys association and the this particular bill in the two thousand seven you the legislature extended this protection to four year olds uh for battery first and in two thousand nineteen with active for ninety eight you extended it for domestic battery and first degree this is a lesser degree offense this is this is the C. and D. felony and basically got have three elements number one you're acting recklessly and that is well defined in Arkansas law since the nineteen seventy five and that is that you consciously disregarded substantial than justifiable risk number two it's got to be serious physical injury we're not just talking about bruising we're talking about life threatening injuries protracted impairment of health thirdly the third element would be that it's a child four years older less and under Arkansas law all witnesses or or presumed to be competent but is practicing lawyers we know that is very difficult the youngest I've ever been able to qualify as a five year old they're not able to testify so you're extending this protection to the most vulnerable of us those that can't testify off the top of my head a quick example would be you handle a firecracker to a three year old and it blows their fingers off or a baby sitter doesn't pay any attention at all runs the bathwater in its scalding hot and you have sort of second third degree burns up the entire backside of a toddler so again this protects toddlers as protects babies and the that's what this bill does. Questions from the committee. Is there any chance that terrible accidents get caught up in this sure and so that is no Mr chairman that has to be reckless there has to be perceived risk and you ignore it and it's it has to again it's not select reckless driving it is like manslaughter it's that kind of recklessness. To work. A sleep in the four year old. Of. Got to a lot door or. Reggaeton drowned in swimming pool. Not not likely in that scenario not without more facts if it happened to three times before. Committee your failure to perceive the risk is the issue not that you don't perceive there is your failure to receive the rest. Senator Ross. In that scenario happened Many years ago had a. A few that had a rare muscular Mr disease called X. disease. And had to. Blinded him. Any good stay with my. Parents grandparents. And my mother who had a. Blood infection and time. Was. I had to lay down. In the bag let him go out to the. Pool house and get. Refreshments. He then it hundred times. He he he he drowned in the pool. I mean that I've does not like what it is. The subject to. I mean that there's some this not that cut and dried we're not talking about a older grandmother and grandson could be might not be. If it was a and it was uncle if it was a. Because that had to forty. Happens that I have the same concern. Well again I guess the. Under those facts no Sir recklessly as defined at the wrist made us be of such a nature degree that disregard of the risk. Constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe an actress situation based on the fact that you just gave me there no Sir that would not be reckless. It is however what you all do is tough. I understand a lot of subject is done but I that that would just be a in fact was a concern I'm sorry sentiment there are no facts and circumstances this are going to be fairly rare you're going to have to have reckless behavior you're gonna have to have serious physical injury life threatening injury must have to be to someone four years older or less. Senator Garner. Thank you so it looks like in the code if you're knowingly do this somebody under the age of twelve you can get second degree but wherein the reckless just for four years old and younger so if there's a five year road what would be the penalty would be penalty now judge prosecution my under. More than likely it's going to be better in third degree a misdemeanor okay. Is on the facts that depends on your intent. Okay change the intent from purposeful and I understand that I mean I that's the reckless partisan or I mean derailment where you're yes you're not intending to attract in such a way that you calls injury because of your reckless actions not doing it so sick to go with the chairs the scenario if that happened two or three times I mean the third time it's like really if you fell asleep and the child went out on the road again and got hit by a car at that point you know you're being reckless. I doubt I mean are. All right. Senator Johnson. What is the. What can this be enforced for under four year old now. Well you can but it's it's a misdemeanor. Based on what I mean the statute says the reckless in this don't have that extra for you have I mean those circumstances can happen to any age. And should be prosecuted as such now so wine and for. From what I had for the land for because if they're acting recklessly am I mean you it's it's prosecutable now that well the short answer is that's what the legislature did back in two thousand seven and then when you mended that in two thousand nineteen you if you extended that to domestic and that's that's another part of this is you always try to keep the domestics the same domestic battery third the same as battery third and and the same for second and the same for first. So if someone was acting acting recklessly you could not prosecute. For this matter in a second number of persons who is abused under four years old. As depends again on their intent if it's just reckless it's going to be misdemeanor right now under current law wooden that same. Barker hold true if this passes no Sir. I give up. Render a job again. Thanks thank you Mr chairman so. Kind of a long line center Johnson so the way I read this down is because you have a and B. there as elements under the reckless category right now in order to get it this is a felony right this what we're putting this and now. This change in law yes Sir so we're making it a felony if you're reckless and you have a deadly weapon which I think everybody would agree with or you're drunk driving or impaired driving but then reading or if the victim is under four years of age in any circumstance correct so really what happens is because the other the criteria for this to be prosecuted are serious physical injury. So now any time a four year old has a serious physical injury the determination of whether or not it's a felony is whether it was reckless. Correct. But if a five year old is injured. What's the criteria it would depend on whether it's purposeful knowingly reckless or negligently and it just. If they're under twelve and then again these limits first or set by the legislature under twelve under for. And that's what we were trying to do is follow the. What you previously expressed in that is under four what's the penalty for this second degree battery. It's a secondary batteries a Class D. felony zero to six years. I mean again I think all of us agree that any time a four year old is abused and hurt intentionally or negligently or recklessly there needs to be severe consequences but I do have some concern about now every time a child is hurt. A parent or a caregiver is looking at a felony if a prosecutor determines its right the only determination we get a felony on as if they are part prosecutor terms it's reckless you you would still be subject to prosecution as a misdemeanor current law right but there's a big difference between a misdemeanor I understand understand. Okay. Regarding the current law it is a felony under twelve to because simple physical injury. That's Class D. felony. Currently. Senator Garner are you ready. Social. Thank. I miss you. I'm sure you're well over in our part of the country where you know from it was almost three and half year report was ran over last week by truck I don't know if you are familiar with that knowledge on the truck underneath and the little boy was playing mind the truck the father crawled out of the program back over the little boarding killing three and half euro. Would he be charged with negligent homicide what would he be charged with he died the board I mean could be obviously don't know all the facts that it could be negligent homicide which is a Class C. misdemeanor or it could be recklessly causing his death which is manslaughter. Which is a C. felony. So you got a middle order man trouble with this. Where do we get away from the fact that sometimes things happen accidents happen and when we're not. Liable for certain things that happen that are purely an accident. With the parent didn't do anything other than it was just an action. And often times that's that's the decision is this was simply an accident they weren't reckless this is this is unprecedented it never happened before to the to the neighbor or to the parent this is this never happened before and when that those are the facts that it is an accident. But he was still be. Possibly charged with negligent homicide I mean that's a possibility I don't have all the facts right under it and it it it's very difficult for me to with hypotheticals like that make any kind of determination of any investigation and. You've got to consider all perspectives. Our members I think on this bill I'm going to pull down will visit with each of you individually until we're comfortable I can count I think we need to pull this down and I'm certainly past two minutes All. So that's okay with you in my final one is the the the center to do have another question you want to ask. Question. That's okay with you Senator yes please go ahead sure that I'm not gonna say I'm for against it really the only issue I have is that all the other elements for either a the person size use a gun which is decision they made use of deadly weapon not going cheap I'm soon as deadly weapon or they decide to drink and then that calls injury so as both decisions I've made that. Add to my reckless behavior I think the issue I have with this is this isn't really something I Matias by definition of the person who was hurt by categorically will all four year olds will fall into similar meet the other two elements I think that's what the distinction it did you have purposely throughout the other part of the code I personally heard somebody or intentionally try to hurt twelve then you can be doing this or you just heard anybody purposely could be second degree I just think that categorically doing it based on the victim in that way I just got C. compelling reason why. We should do it for them whenever it's not me making a decision it's more just like the reckless behavior affects that young persons that makes sense I understand what you Senator as I think that's my my hang up on a not that I don't want to take four years obviously. Thank you and before you pull down Senator Hester I would like to chime in of the names and things make sure early on that sounded good. Of but my constant work with child welfare it It were prosecutors. They are normally not prosecuting most of these cases of and I often point out that there's no prosecutor in there's no jury with these true findings of and the. But. From time to time there's things that often point out. This person has a perfect record in this never happened before. And this is an accident. But we're. Pretty firm about. Of my contributing to putting people well so I question you know four year old fall falling off backroom four wheelers or being on the four Wheeler with me and I turn it over I can see all kinds of scenarios that I'm not as trusting. As you are you that somebody makes a decision that I wasn't reckless what I would term reckless in what. Of prosecutor might term reckless what we might be our normal life. might be reckless to someone else so just consider that and Senator Hester up Preciado bring the bill one of. A sincere suggested you pull down as we move all. Yes so I'll pull down and I would like a bill in the house bill sixteen oh four and that's my final one. This bill is a major reform bill brought to you by the Arkansas prosecuting attorneys association it does three things to drug paraphernalia First Lady it it changes the law where if you're arrested for meth pipe as meth residue in it you can be charged with possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia a felony this changes law that that will only count as one for this criminal history store I just I testified about before normally under Arkansas law currently you would have to felonies on your record this for our habitual criminal Act makes it just one felony so it's kind of like a two for one but that again is a substantial change in the law number two in the first part of section two is it to change the law that your arrest for right now a meth pipe would be if it's a felony but after this law it would be a misdemeanor so it it again as major reform in the law that. What is a felony today once this passes and becomes law it will become a misdemeanor now your second offense it becomes a felony and obviously if you're possessing a drug paraphernalia manufacture it or traffic in it it remains a felony of the third thing it does in that second part in section two is it simply says no matter how many separate baggies or containers or syringes you have on your person time of the arrest you can only be charged with one offense rather than if you've got six used syringes be charged with six counts of felony drug paraphernalia you can be charged with one count and that really I mean these laws were passed in the early seventies mid seventies and there have been a very serious look at him and we is prosecuting attorneys felt like. This needed to be done. Senator Ballinger you're recognized. Our state of social thank you Mr chairman these are all these all pertain to non violent crimes right these are all non violent to the extent that you know drug sometimes lead to you know robberies drug sometimes lead to homicides but yes these end up themselves these are non violent in the overall intent of doing this is to reform lesson yes. Cut back on the number of yes okay. So I. Other questions from the committee. Hearing none three one to hear from the audience to speak for against the bill. See non Senator Hester your clothes for your bill we're close. Pleasure of the Committee do pass from center us second from Senator Ballinger. Yeah. It is. That is the next thing. Is is there any discussion. Is there any discussion Senator Garner. Yes Sir I just had a comment that you know Senator has to bring in this. Bill that is set for societal good and makes things so much better and give people second chances just it's just a fresh breath of air coming through the Judiciary Committee has had to comment on that thank you so much center. Any other discussion Senator Ballinger. Thank you to all the air I'm like really want to thank I mean this is the this is example of prosecutors deciding that a tool but they had to beat up on on the bad guy was probably not fair and in making the the the move on their own the company corporation I just want to say how much I appreciate that that you don't always see government saying you know what we're. Into my chair going too far because literally there are people who will not have a hundred baggies and they'll go when they're plea and like look I could charge you for each one of these you're going to you're going to go away for a long time or you take this please and and and that is a is a tool that you guys have pulled back inside now we probably should use that tool so anyway I just wanna say I appreciate the fact that you guys are bringing this bill. Other discussion. Senator Stubblefield we're here. Since we're getting soft on crime here. What about Mr to an individual who a committed a non violent crime when they were eighteen or nineteen for example writing a hot check may be fleeing from a police officer having their second amendment rights taken away for thirty years thirty years after they lived the model live and still have to go through a lengthy process to get those second amendment rights restored would you be in favor of that. Current law you to pass I know what those plans are. The ruling the pads. I understand. All. Well so is this the current law before changing now. Thank you thank you senator to procure that before so. Thank you Mr chairman. Any other discussion on the bill. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. Opposed motion carried congratulations under history of past your bill. I think we are passed. Two minute bills at this point. Of this sow. But you're only committee so. Of the next question is going to be if you have witnesses here who have traveled which I do of or if you have a bill that urgent to come out today. Okay well I will put mine off to a little bit longer and I'm take of representive Scott here from the house next. Good morning colleagues. This is my first time before this committee you're here to present house bill fourteen seventy yes representative Jamie Scott house district thirty seven. colleagues represented Pilkington and I have been working on this bill four since December it's house bill fourteen seventy and this bill amends the law to prohibit solitary confinement in our juvenile detention facilities and restrict housing in a correctional or detention facility for individuals who are pregnant breast feeding have given birth within the last thirty days or are suffering from post partum depression or caring for a child. Of the law currently restricts solitary confinement. For juveniles with the exception of circumstances in which individuals pose a threat a direct threat to the safety of a person who is working A. Clark there it to the safety and secure operation of a facility or someone who's attempting to escape of facility House Bill fourteen seventy we consider these factors as well as the health and safety of the child born or unborn in determining whether the mothers are subject to solitary confinement in restrictive housing this bill is simply about codifying best practices already in place with the Arkansas department of corrections and expanding the protections in our juvenile detention facilities there's no non opposition to this bill we work with the department of corrections DYS said the governor's office and that we have a broad coalition of support for Americans for prosperity in two concerts eight this bill passed the house for ninety five votes said nine opposing and I would be happy to answer any questions and I also have Secretary grace if you don't want to ask him anything. questions from the committee. Senator Garner. Thank you so this is this can be indefinite. Four years if they're caring for child or if their suffering pros part of the depression is that correct missing that the depression goes on for a long time which I know in some cases you can they would never be able to place unless they meet the there is a threat somebody else so when the other elements correct senator garner two things would come into play they are the first is post partum depression shin obviously being a medical a a diagnosed medical condition tion it would of. Last for the duration of that diagnosis which leads into the second thing this bill does which again is reflective of the division of corrections current policy which is for a in may who was pregnant or an inmate who has given birth and is still under medical care post partum to consult with that inmates medical provider before making housing assignment disposition so The doctor does diagnose and inmate as post partum and that diagnosis last for three and a half months you're correct for the duration of that diagnosis this law would take would control the housing assignments for that in make consistent with the department's current policy okay and there's no chance that. Ninety nine point nine percent of the juvenile women who have a baby organs uses for legitimately obviously there's no chance I could try to abuse is not to get solitary confinement or say they're breast feeding for extended period time or something like that you don't anticipate something like that happened so um I would have written in June juveniles in my facilities but of a pregnant adult no this would be a you were you are there physically observed to be pregnant or of a identified as being pregnant do a pregnancy test administrator yeah I understand that time all the breast feeding or find somewhere I maybe I'm just I mean I think a person too much here for a good bill and I just I withdraw the question I think it's. Other questions Senator Ross. Committee individuals would. This be possible in the system to apply to we look back when we started working with will represent of Scott on this prior to the session we have not placed a pregnant in may and of restrictive housing for disciplinary reasons in the last five years the only placements we have made is we have used to our during our call the quarantine protocols we have placed them in Quantico fourteen days upon intake so we have actually placed them for disciplinary reasons at any given time we probably have seven to eight pregnant inmates in our custody at a time. Thank you. Other questions from the committee. Be sure if you have on the asco. And not me on the floor tomorrow Senator Jason. How it has handled if it seems like solitary would be. I know it's it seems. It seems like they would be. Separated that would be a good thing. From other inmates in a situation like this. So how's is handled in institution now so the first thing that comes to play is We changed our what we now refer to as restrictive housing we've moved away from the times of solitary confinement but we changed our restrict housing policies and twenty seventeen so the first thing that comes into play is for an inmate male or female to be eligible in to be placed and restrictive housing they must have demonstrated to their behavior that they pose a direct threat to the safe and secure operations of the facility or to the safety of themselves or other persons we we cannot lock somebody up in solitary confinement simply because we're mad at. So that standard extends to inmates regardless of gender however there are three exclusions if a inmate is pregnant we cannot place them in what is called extended restrictive housing which this policy contemplates that is an assignment for thirty days or more so if that mom is pregnant we got thirty days to correct the use that housing assignment to correct their behavior we can't leave them in their first for the remaining six months of the pregnancy we also by policy approach prohibited from placing SMI diagnosed inmates in an extended restrictive housing assignment along with juveniles which is an issue that we work with representative Scott on and senator Clark on in the last session it is also part of our current policy that if we have an inmate who was pregnant before we make an housing assignment whether it's in general population or in restrictive housing to include if they go on the upper bunk or the lower ball we're going to consult with medical and determine the appropriate housing assignment for them we also do the same thing when we're looking at a signing inmates who are pregnant to a particular job got a job assignment will consult with their medical provider there. So this is pretty much but none along with yes in in practice this and our state representative Scott for taking time to look at our current policies that we've been working on for the last five and a half years we feel like we're at a good place and we understand as a department and the legislature's desire that leadership changes administration changes in good practices today may not be implemented tomorrow so we understand the need to codify the good things that we're already doing. Thank you. Other questions from the committee. Singleness third. Anyone here to testify for or against the bill. See non representative Scott re close three bill yes Sir and thank you Committee once again this bill is just a codified best practices already in place and try to extend some of those protections for juveniles and I would ask for your support if possible. Do pass from Senator Ballinger. Second from Senator Stubblefield. Discussion from center Johnson. So. What happens if there is an imminent threat upon that pregnant woman. And solitary is the safest place that you can order and you have this law in place. So as it stands now we would be able to make that housing assignment for up to thirty days at if there was a need to go beyond that what is likely to happen is that we would it would most likely be decided that the safest place for her and the child would be in a hospital out setting all right thank you thank you to your. Any other discussion. Hearing none offer the motions and focusing on a. All opposed motion carried congratulations representative Scott you asked your bill thank you colleagues. Senator back on. What bill are we looking at. Four seventy four. Senator Charles Beckham District twelve. That would look like a two minute bill to me but you're recognized center Beckham I have someone who wants to speak on it as well as resigned okay Senate bill four seventy four makes fertility fraud a crime of. This bill is actually passed along to me by a News reporter in in my district it will be to look at and see what my thoughts were when I started reading into our fertility fraud was. It was pretty horrendous so it surprised me we didn't have a law against this at this time. currently there's no law addressing fertility fraud in Arkansas Senate bill four seventy four makes it does make it a crime it breaks it down and I guess three parts. The first part is fertility abuse. It's a it's when a healthcare provider performs assisted reproduction procedure on a person on a person knowingly. Using unauthorized human reproductive material that would be a Class B. felony under this law. fertility treatment for the second part it's when the. Healthcare provider this represents the identity of the person who donated the human reproductive material that would be a Class C. felony. And then the bill also creates a civil action for for the events. I will confirm. Questions of. Questions from the committee. Hearing none of it is there anyone here besides mystery game to speak for against the bill. No. Matt Smith is here Matthew Smith is here to speak for or the bill. Of the Matthew Smith. You'll come to the table Joe can stay there. In this committee he can come there to the sun. Mitscher's. Smith if you would recognize yourself for the record or identify yourself for the record yes Sir thank you general Clark a committee for let me be honest Matthew Smith. To the best of my knowledge I am currently. The first and only person who was conceived as a result of fertility fraud in the state of Arkansas. based on cases across the country and in other states I can tell you that that I say known case because I've likely have another ten twenty fifty maybe over a hundred siblings. Who have also. Had this happened. I say that. Selfishly I I would like for at least one of them to find out. So that I have someone to share the experience with that's going through the same thing. For their sake I I hope they never do. If I can start kind of tell you a little about myself kind of a brag sheet not not to Pat myself on the back to see you know who I am and what my mentality is. I'm United States Marine. I was promoted meritoriously corporal and sergeant. I have participated operation cornerstone an Albanian Iraqi war veteran. I would briefly for the north Rock police department was the honor graduate from my academy class. I've degrees history income justice from UALR. A second reply called resilient you just to an improbable and judo and I own operate my own martial arts academy. I I say that to say this. Finding out that my biological father was my parents fertility doctor has shaken me to my absolute core. Is broken me in in so many ways that I didn't know where possible. It is done it through no fault of my own and no fault of my parents. L. A. I. I would say above all else you know I'm I'm a husband and a father to. Two two wonderful children and son to. Two of the the best parents someone could ask for. So to find out that that my dad was not my biological father and then on top of that how that happened. it's been devastating. When I was a kid our my grandfather my dad's father and to to clarify if I say my dad I mean the man who raised me who has been a huge influence in my life and made me who I am. the the doctor's name is Gary Phillips would. And I will never have never referred to him as my dad. His biological father or strictly by his name. But my dad's that grew up with this lived with us as I was growing up for a few years. He was a marine corps veteran Fite water canal. It was my hero a absolutely through and through this still is. When I graduate completed the crucible. Recorder camp and receive Michael Globen anchor. It was a proud moment for me not only because I became United States Marine. Because deep down I I felt him smiling down I mean I knew he was proud. When we found all this out. My uncle's. I came to visit us. And they brought me his service uniform. Some of his discharge paperwork as a token that I was a Smith that that I was still part of the family. My grandfather passed away in nineteen ninety. I don't get to know that he will would have except me the same way I believe he would of I want to believe he would have. But there's always that doubt. That was stolen from me. It is a I can. I I I can't say again how how how. Negatively this is impacted. The next part of my story and and I hate that it is. Is my son. He's two and a half years old now he is a wonderful boy. At twenty one days old. He. I was leaving too much you know. I got a good night's sleep you know it's just you don't you don't have any twenty one days old. We call the the nurses like children's they told us to get him to the ER. And when we did. His heart rate was at two hundred forty beats a minute it spiked up to three hundred. doctor Sherman E. R.. treated in. But ultimately he coated they did CPR for fifty one minutes. He a spent. A day and a half on an ECMO machine essentially a bypass life support. Spent another three days on a ventilator. In total we spent thirty nine days in the the cardio vascular unit at children's hospital and and it is by the grace of god. And the the wonderful doctors and nurses at children's hospital that he's here with us today. While we were in the hospital every day I was asked if there was any family history. That that could of given us an indication known what was going on. Something that could help treat him. At that time I I knew that my dad was my biological father I was still working through the process of finding out. Who it was and how it happened So all I knew is that I knew nothing. It was nothing that I could do that I knew. it to give them the answers that they needed that I wanted them to know. As we move forward we filed the a civil or my parents I filed a civil lawsuit against Dr would. And as part of that in discovery we asked him for medical history and my lawyer sent him basically. The same thing you would fill out if you go to a doctor's office for the first time you know you have a family history or any of this. He skipped the cardiovascular section. I've I've I've picked up in the time that I've been here that this is a very pro law enforcement crowd. We say I I have a background in law enforcement I is well the pro law enforcement. That said my experience with a particular detective at Little Rock PD in regards to this matter were in my mind unsatisfactory. Of my parents and I would Little Rock PD the southwest substation to follow report and try to move forward. with legal action. Our criminal prosecution. When we did we showed up the the officer at the desk was very helpful But he didn't know what statute how to to write the report what what the best Avenue would be so he called down to the sex crimes detectives. They're about to go to lunch so yes we can come back in an hour and a half. we did. And it was another forty five minutes after we returned before they came down to talk to us. I had about a hundred and twenty pages worth of documentation things that I had found that I brought with me they looked at none of it. They basically. Got the doctor's name a few of the the basics of the. The case and so that they would contact the of prosecuting attorney's office. and get back with this we went on a Friday so they're gonna get back with us early next week the next week. the detective I spoke with was the detective Richard Helderman. And he returned my call on Monday or Tuesday the next week so that he's spoken with the prosecuting attorney's office and there was no crime on the books. to prosecute or charge the doctor. I asked him if he would. Right an informational report. Just so I would have a record that that we'd gone to him at least try criminal criminal prosecution. And he told me would and I asked him if I could get back within a couple days I want to get my my stuff together. I tend to call in thirty times after that left over fifteen messages. And he never got back with me. he wasn't gonna get a prosecution out of the case I guess he didn't interest in. This bill. Would take that piece my story away for the next person. It's one of the the big things why I'm I'm so happy the centers came to me with this bill So that the next time this happens someone finds out that they don't go through that part of the story. The the final thing I would say it is in the. The process of this you know I mentioned my grandfather. And in my my working through what happens. I. Wanted to know when my time comes when I cross over to the other side you hear the stories of having a family member there to greet you. I've always thought that would be my grandfather that I get to see him again and and suddenly I question that I know it's a strange. Place to go but but that was the the path I went I I studied near death experiences and became fascinated with it. One of the things that I I concluded. Because I've been told repeatedly you know fortunately my parents realize they're in their their seventies. But. If they had passed I would have no case. US civilly. Or or anything because it was not for that what the doctor had done I wouldn't be here. My my unique perspective on this I would say that that is false. if we. I believe that the the soul is separate from the body and I think most people would. I would say that that regardless of of who my father was I may have some different. Life experiences I might look a little different but my soul as my soul. Regardless. And the The the nurture versus nature the the care that I received things that I learned would be the same. Thank you for your time I would hope that this There's no objections to this but. I appreciate you let me come in and and and say my piece. Questions for the committee Senator Ballinger. Thank you Mr I appreciate you coming to Smith. this Mister would did you get recovery against him we're still moving for the civil case I would hope that things are courts of slow death has he lost his license. We filed a complaint with the state medical board And he is in his eighties and had maintained his license throughout any conveniently when we filed the the complaint decided he financially could not afford to continue to maintain his license okay so you never you never a face any action from the medical board okay thank you. Other questions from the committee. Sir Clark thank you at. We just thousand percent but there's this might be more questions there's or mechanisms to get the DNA and all that through the normal civil and criminal procedure when being kind of just have to make to make that more accessible through how we do this correct ninety eight you did run into a lot of local blood so that we did run into I I contacted the doctor initially just eight you know I think this is what happened would you you know do a DNA test you know if I'm wrong then then I apologize for for waste your time ultimately we had to go to the the court and get a court order. and of course they fought it so there was a lot of stress and anxiety on our part in regards to trying to get yeah I imagine just you know put this on the criminal record would allow that to work in the normal process I just wonder if there's any way for the specific case you could adjusted where makes it easier to get record holder those kind of things that might be too big complexes bill because you're just and other budget criminal procedure or in other things I'm just I'm trying to make it more fluid for people like you who have this situation come up with the will to get testing to the information I need Sir gardener there's there's several. Other aspects that we're working on but they get really really complicated really complex one of that one of those is turning or medical records to the victims the other one is is easier access to DNA records as well. That's not included in this. Senator Ballinger. It. How did you imminent understand you know the situation with your son it It because you start seeking but but how did you how did you just a minute. At the side to do the DNA tests like what what triggered that and then what triggered you to to think that it was wood who. By financial interest in it was because my relationship my grandfather. I have a my aunts had visited my great-grandfather's grave site. I realized that I didn't mean I didn't know about my great grandfather I didn't know anything about the family. so. I started digging in well as it no one did so I started digging into it and really getting into the. The ancestry portion of it. And in trying to do that I decided to take the NHS so I can get matches and I asked my dad to take it because that's what I I still hadn't realized thinking you know he's he's one generation closer you know maybe I guess more matches that I didn't get. And then we came back is not a match as far as getting the doctor would at thirty nine days in the hospital the dig through the records okay and I essentially started looking at at your relatives or DNA matches that I didn't recognize that their family trees and you it be three four generations back to the one of the big names that that jumped out at me was George Washington Carter. Just the the George Washington and I saw it three four five times. There were a few others Other names I can't sing so I just started with those names I'm a family trees going down. And X. marks the spot okay makes sense. Other questions from the committee. Hearing none thank you Mr Smith for testimony. Anyone else here to speak for against the bill. See non center Beckham with your clothes your bill. Yes Sir I just want to thank Mr Smith for the help on the bill he I've I've met with them in is is proposed parents and the insight they provided. May the bill much more complicated to deal with simply because there's aspects you simply do not think of yeah a it's even going to the family tree for one thing that is is mothers said to me when we met the right of the meeting was. You know every time someone looks at ancestry dot com now does it deviation were Matthew was born. And that troubles her because she's been faithful to her husband for the day that they set their valves. So I'll create a good vote. Do pass from Senator Ballinger second from center Johnson any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed. Congratulations center by committee pastor bill. Sir. I have folks here to testify I'm going to run Senate bill five twenty nine. So Hendren thought he would be back. But he is not back yet so in the interest of time I believe senator rice's senior. SunTrust would you take a chair. Thank you. Sir Clark you're recognized Mister chair with his image five twenty nine and whoever you'd like to bring up the last of the Scott Finkbeiner to come help me present this bill. You will recognize yourself with you're recognized president I'm Scott Peck matter just full market close. Scott Frank manner. That any group that you're with for. actually founder of a Facebook group called Spring County crime watch we've been fighting trying to. Slow down the fees in our area and and a different violations the law this call came to our attention you know really quickly talk with people who had their property stolen and they felt victimized twice because they would go back to the pawn shop they would find it to the place a contact and they had to purchase their own stolen property back from the pawn shop The restitution process was there burden to carry through the prosecutor's office in the course so most people stealing do not have a. Means to do anything in the first place so you know good luck trying to get money from them many of them will take years or never get money back all. R. open to questions Mr. Senator you're recognized for a question yes Sir so on current law you have to give soon you will meet the reasonable cause exists you have to return stolen property but now we're gonna put upon sharp people are going to have to pay you money back to the person and no Sir the. Just I give hypothetical of a. I hate date if you will let me talk a little bit quiet I'm having a hard time your family I will fund over. There is give you a hypothetical a known thief comes in with a five thousand dollar diamond ring upon it or to sell it to the pawn shop they give you five hundred dollars will your wife or whoever on the rain comes in and discovers that they see that the ring that's that's my ring you can prove it then in order for you to get your ring back you have to pay the pawn shop five hundred dollars what they paid and then you have to file for restitution through the course of the prosecutor's office. Unless something somewhere else I would argue you don't if you have this reasonable calls with the affidavit they have to give that stolen property back to you without charge to unless there's no definition for restitution I don't my instinct would be the that is your have to roll be liable so you so that now you have to pay money to the person who is accused of stealing and I miss reading that others we have a long list of people who have been happy to do this process and in very rare cases there's been some law enforcement who would actually take possession of the stolen property which they usually don't but they would take possession during the course of the investigation and then they would give it if they give it directly to the victims and I could keep you without purchasing it back otherwise they had to purchase it. Hi my might come back your goal is. Senator Ballinger you're recognized thank you Mr chairman at and this is probably before the bill sponsor also but if you if you look going along Senator Garner is questioning on page two we'll start in line five in a so the owner of stolen property may request that the dealer return the stolen property without charge to the owner which is what we want that's in the that but that's not underline that's in current law. This is or provide full restitution. By signing the following terms affidavit so forth so what it what it appears is that currently you can get your property back. If you can demonstrate that your property out now let me say aye I had the. We had some homeless people that live in our basement we're ministering to helping still the computer had a all sorts of like client information on it took down to the pawn shop I didn't have any in the the ability to prove that it was was a mind so I'd have to buy it back so I'm I'm not saying that that that never happened it does happen but under the current law it is specifically says that you have the ability to get it back for what we're adding is offer restitution so the assumption is if you prove it was yours and they sold it they have to pay via what they paid for for a minute look well they don't have to pay you they just have to hand over the property back will but not this building in fact let me say this this bill may make it where they don't have to pay you don't have to give you the property back this bill may make it because of the change in the bill that they contain no I'm not giving you the property back but I'll give you a fiver Bucks that I paid for it at I I I was trying to do is is is right but I don't think that's what you're doing I think actually you could be hurting yourself because you could be giving the pawnbroker an opportunity say. Now we're not gonna give you this property back we bought it fair and square the law doesn't require me to give it back instead since this is a five thousand dollar ring and I'm gonna sell for three grand I'll give you a fiver Bucks I paid for it but what what we run into I'll put this out in our group we've got we've been in existence for about seven months ago seven thousand members in a small county which is you know a considerable amount and I've asked after speaking with the prosecutor's office trying to get the process legal process to get it back up I ask anyone in our group to please come forward to give me your experiences you had the stolen property right and I have not had a single one that was able to get their property back. Without the process of purchasing it from the pawn broker right everyone of them is had to purchase their own property bank and and and I ran to the same thing right so I'm I'm I'm a bit while those of people I I I agree. Your bill actually may make it worse not better I'm just saying like that it. I think that the I think that on page two in two different places you give them an option of not getting the property back but instead paying paying money it's not your ideas great what you want to do is great we will and I'm I'm I'm right there with you I mean it was ridiculous I go by my computer back that they should have known that this these people were not they were well known in the community and you know they're they're hawking this computer anyway whatever but what I would say is I don't think that the the technically your bill works way it should work okay. The goal of it was to get basically the pawn shops be treated just like an ordinary citizens would if I was in possession of a stolen ATV that step by receiving without you know a bill of sale to prove that I actually purchased it somebody that I thought was legitimate yes so it sounds like we just do is they will work on the on the bill exactly what will blame it on Senator Clark. Sure the. The Senator Ballenger I agree with you that the language appears to. To show that of and I might as a member of the committee asked that the the prosecutors here have an answer to this question seems to show that your property already has to be returned but yet I know of people who have had to buy the property back of the prosecutor you aware of any other language in the law other than this section here which seems to indicate that it has to be returned. Now this spring core. Fifteen years ago that says a pawnbroker has property interests and thanks to all. Do we need do we need to ask for your record if you would come to the US border police project that. Mr map jumping I see something real quick for if you if you know what Paul just made a Senator Garner you're recognized so I looked up the code at this referring to and there's actually affidavit process for a property owner who has or stolen property worth the owner the license pawn shop required to the affidavit and then there's a seven day window with either return to property or take court legal action there are some exemptions if the person is a family member who sold or something like that it looks like there's or process in the law my instinct is the people who pay it back again told this by the pawn shop even though it's not the law because they will get their money back because I lost it and it if you raised awareness about what the current law whiskey could rectify this problem or you would just how this works the full restitution give me some real hard her born forced the property I think once a sale and I have to pay money now gets more complicated so I would say first thing is look at the current loan affidavit C. needs to be reworked but there is a process with either a they get the property back or they go to court over it currently on the books thank you okay Your shoes if you go in the afternoon I have a the Senator Hendren after that. Just briefly that that's my familiarity with the loss of the Supreme Court of Arkansas several years ago maybe fifteen years ago said that the pawn shop has a property interest in the pond property and based on that the legislature acted in created this affidavit process sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't in my office what I do often times is I tell the pawn shop look give the property back to the victim I'll get restitution and they'll that the defendant will pay your pawn shop back. I've done that successfully in many many times as kind of a short circuit to it but that is the current law this affidavit process part of the state part of the problem as well talking to people and I've noticed it myself is there's really no disincentive from a pawnbroker purchasing non stolen property they have nothing to lose because if they by your five hundred dollar diamond ring that's worth five thousand they are sure to get their monies out of it one way or the other so if we could all participate that way. Imagine the amount of stolen property that would be moved to this state polls Senator Hendren you're recognized. Share. On. Thank you Mr chairman yeah I want to say some I don't say very often that's I grew Senator Ballenger thank you yeah. And again not being an attorney but I see a couple things here as I look at this which is I can understand why a lot of people to get their stuff back because the law says you can requested that say they have to give it now you got this affidavit process and now it's saying you can requested and then they have their choice really to give you the property back or give restitution and then it says the same thing down there even under the affidavit process it makes it where again in the case that they've got a. Five hundred dollar ring that's worth five thousand and they decide out a whole lot rather pay the under five hundred dollars so I can make my forty five hundred dollars on the ring they can do that. So if anything this is making it harder for you to get your property back because it's given the pawn shop owner another opportunity to say nah I'm going to I like where I'm at on the steel M. am I reading that incorrectly. In center and I don't think your The and I think you point out important distinction is it so you it says you may request it doesn't say that they have to have it back which is would be because I was going to say that you know I had friends and law enforcement toll you'll have to buy back the pro told me how to vote back you have to a court of which is what. The law says when you look at number two following election which is probably of the language that we really wanted to change Would would be my guess of what we've added here is that. Of provide full restitution which I would assume would apply somebody already sold the property but. but again it's still under request so that. That really doesn't help a lot either. We're probably gonna need to go back and see if we can rewrite this we do have a not a witness here though of that would like to tell their experience I think that may be helpful Mr. You're recognized risk Cannington. what she's coming I I've me throw in hello story. You know at the. We've all I think had somebody and are no seven but we had a our business we had a twelve hundred dollar steel professional shall. And they got up front door with the guy Haughey's leather coat that hid under full length leather coat and the salt added to local pawn shop. At twelve hundred dollars so that the pawn shop owner right gas put in their mid Sturch. Tell me the pawn shop owner. Should men suspicious that gave seven hundred dollar for I wanna give him seven hundred dollars in the new. That was voluntarily are I would pressed it but so I I have to see need here but I'm not clear yet so if you will recognize yourself and. Hi my name is Amanda Pennington. I'm and I'm just going to raise our annual meeting microphone close to pull the whole thing towards. Yeah I'm just going to read directly from my Facebook post at this time if that's okay and. The. The date of the post is June eighteenth of two thousand and twelve and the incident had was happened a year prior to so in two thousand eleven and the last year had to bicycle stolen from my home one was a vintage replica bicycle and the other with the nineteen fifty been a Turkey lease lady's three speed bicycle that I absolutely loved the very day I discovered the bodies had been stolen I called the law and filed a police report later that evening I found the vintage Hercules chained up outside of pawn stars pawn shop near my home the following business day the officer that filed the report paid the owner of the pawn I have pawn stores visit and let him know the Hercules was stolen and report had been filed the officer also notified me and told me I could pick the bike at I had been misinformed if you find your stolen property at a pawn shop in order to get your property back you have to actually purchase it back I was told by the owner of pawn stars that he couldn't sell the Hercules to anyone other than myself because the report had been filed and. And that the case would have to go through the courts once a thief was picked up in a court date had been set I would be notified that I may appear in court for the hearing. The thief Anthony Bill Evans of Malvern was picked up implied guilty October third two thousand eleven I was never notified by anyone that he had been picked up nor was I ever notified and the court date the judge handling the case never even ordered the stolen property to go back to the rightful owner my sales how and why does this happen. Friday my husband went to purchase my Hercules from pawn stars and the owner informed him that he had been out for a few weeks and its partner messed up sold it also stated he never received a police report. So I just had the rest of it is just me ranting of being victimized twice and being left out of the loop and I never purchased my property back from the pawn shop just principal. I wanted them to have to return it to me once that went through the courts. Thank you for testimony members or any questions. Thank you for your testimony. Senator Clark. Thank you committee of. I will try to get this amended and the time we have left and bring it back to you we will probably have the pawnbroker's here next time to testify against. But and may I ask the of the prosecutors First and help on this of but a thank you for hearing today and I'm going to pull it down with no objection. Thank you any if no objection from the Committee put closer Concord NH B. five twenty nine. Thank you Mr chair thank you. Hendren. I never can remember where the mask owner taken at all. Are we looking at S. B. two eighteen yes Sir. Okay your is so tender you're recognized presenter bill okay thanks center and a district to Senate bill two eighteen it's the same bill and I want to thank the committee for their suggestion to work with the state police on making sure people have access to these machines this has to do with the non non criminal background check. And using the live scan devices so you should have a hand out looks like this has a map of Arkansas and a bunch of yellow diamonds. so the suggestion was made to make sure that the state police could do it at the tree paid quarter so people wouldn't have to drive as far after visiting with state police and and some of their folks they thought would be better to the sheriff's office because of the low that they have at the state police troop headquarters now so they reached out to all the county sheriffs and saw how many of them would be willing to do these background checks in with the machines they have some of them may require a software update which is no cost but all the ones you see there with yellow diamonds have agreed that they will make their next appointment available for these testing the the red stars as you see there are the commercial harvesters that also. Will provide the service and they'll actually traveled if you have a group or somebody if it's not too far they'll travel because clearly they are they're in it to to make money this does not include the other side said that are already out there that I provided last week many of the schools have it DHS has it many of their locations this is just people who've already agreed to do all of these non criminal background checks so again I think we got that agreement because if you're also requesting concerned that if we're gonna make this mandated that it be accessible so I think what you're gonna end up with with this product again is less work for the state police better service for the consumers and because of the suggestion less travel I hope to get these things completed. you'll proportions Roger M. Senator Ballinger. Thank you Mr eight do you know our our other sheriff's offices are they getting it getting equipped with this is evidence of the plan to have all of the shares have this or or I'm like what what is the plan which actually this is way better than what it was to me before really did did cut out a lot of folks but the question is is the plan to expand it even further yes Sir my name's Quincy Williams major with the regulatory Division State Police ideally that would be great and eventually we hope that that is the case in reality there there is not a mechanism right now to provide every sheriff's office for every law enforcement agency with the machine and some of the machines there are other Laskin machines at some in some counties however there reaching an age where they cannot be updated and the machine would have to be purchased but there's just not funds to do that right now but we are certainly looking at every opportunity out there to the to place additional lab scans and some sheriff's offices purchase their own Lasky and anyway so I think this number will only grow but right now this is what we can provide okay so if if someone walked into any one of these places sheriff's office and where the stars are any one of them right now they'd be able to do that once we provide upgrades okay in the in the the different flow what what's the time frame on that that's a that's a relatively relatively quick fix and and I'm not and that the person but the adding it individuals that services machine say that most of this can be done without even a sat is it to these locations okay good thank you. Other questions from the committee. Hearing none anyone here to speak for or against the bill. Seeing none of Senator hinder you closing your bill close. ThinkCentre Johnson's FOR twenty will make a motion. Do pass. The Bill second of own discussion Senator Hendren of. We appreciate of the work that you've done on it thought was a good idea the first time but making it consumer friendly bills that how will this process works we thank you and the the state police for of. For this work on it of any other discussion. Hearing none all for the bills in a public saying aye. All for the motion in all against. Motion hearing none motion carried resolution center interview pastor bill. Thank you Mr chairman. three oh seven. Thank you Mr chairman there's an amendment to that if the you should have handed out two years to Senate bill three oh seven this is the. Fleeing the Bill. Mr Clark got major marks here to he's done a lot of work on this I want to thank you Mr rose week we've worked with him he brought a concern and I think that we come to language now that to we have a compromise we have some common ground which were so good at finding these days but if you look what with the concern was was about felony convictions for somebody that was trying to find their way to a safe place to pull over well that was. Probably not going to be a problem probably is not good enough so the amendment basically makes it to where song as long as somebody's not speeding they don't fall under this and it's a thirty day minimum time in jail for for that category so again Mr Osman may want to. Comment on that but let me just talk about the reason for this bill first off I kind of went over it briefly is I've got the statistics and I'll ask major mark to speak to have that be okay there's been just a dramatic increase in the number of people. Trying to run at high speeds away array from law enforcement and it's getting people hurt putting a lot of lives at risk. So we've got to take some steps to try to determine that and that's what this legislation does since we soften crime with Hester now it's time to maybe have some back up on it a little bit so what this does again is make it a little bit more serious offense when you intentionally fully felony flee speeding to get away then you are subject to it and instead of just a misdemeanor up to thirty days in jail now so again I I if it's okay I'd like to ask major marks I don't know if we got the email out that we were going to show a video of some of these high speed pursuits Alice I think's going to email to you since we can show it on the screen here's is all this on your Amendment Senator hunter yes yes I guess I that the the amendment basically replaces most of the bill so I move adoption of the amendment okay so trainer my exposes our Stubblefield second well doctor the amendment any discussion none all for the motion saying public saying aye All opposed motion carried commercial center and you have amended your bill thank you and Mister chairman okay I'd like to ask major markets as he could to be recognized to speak a little bit to the need to be seen for this this change absolute major if you would recognize yourself for the record a good morning major force largely Arkansas state police. Senator Hendren mention our statistics on fleeing is dramatically gone up of twenty seventeen to twenty nineteen we seen a fifty two percent increase in flowing in the tree area which is Central Arkansas that's been Little Rock Conway loan we sing in eighty three percent increase several things that we're seeing in these pursuits are excessive speed eighty extreme indifference to human life in the manner that the suspects are driving and also unfortunately there are some cases where innocent bystanders are heard motors to hurt in these in this this bill addresses all all three of those elements. Questions from the committee. Thank you mayor of. Is there any common three under common denominator among these are or any of these people who are fleeing. Are they all licensed drivers to have liability insurance or the American citizens is there anything in there that. Is far as those threads that you just mentioned Senator the there you know we're seeing to make sure a lot of don't have a valid driver's license of you know we're as far as illegal immigrants were not saying a whole lot of that the time of it's really a very very good reasons why the run you you Stoppelman the that may have warned of are they may just have like say a suspended driver's license is really bearing a large percentage of them have illegal drugs or. You get it buries of you would think that anybody that would run it would be that have a really dramatic reason for doing so but again up we've we've had in cases where they just ran because I don't want a ticket. that that simple but they're they're driving that they're doing is is is incredible it's causing a lot of problems for for public yeah I know we have one in my area Brown alma yes Sir back in the fall the crazy yes that's all I have Mr. Any other questions from the committee. Senator Johnson. Thank you for the. I see that the. D. felony possible prosecution was removed and. Apparently for. Knuckleheads to get that possibility of prosecution for for racing and then fleeing we're gonna they're gonna have to steal a package from somebody's porch and run from you so I appreciate you bringing this. Yes thank you Sir. Major asking for a friend yes this wouldn't apply if you were just driving fast enough that it took me awhile to catch you. At a no Sir it would mean a again it it it there's several checks and balances in their Mr chairman were you know obviously. He again there there's a charge is a separate charge for people that are what we would call they just didn't see it and felt a pull over time it's a traffic charge were the this Iggy and the prosecutor would have to be on board with the charge and the judge would have to final have final sale at George. I will say what state police employees asking them for. Yes any other questions from the committee. Hearing none I do we have anyone else to testify for against the bill. Seeing none of Senator Hendren are you closing your bill yeah I I just want to again the numbers are in two thousand seventeen they were two hundred ninety six proceeds by the state police almost not quite wanted day last year there were four hundred and fifty so I think you can see what they're the pointing to is it's just get out of hand so I appreciate a good vote. Let me do pass as amended. Six hundred closes main motion to pass the of centrist over was gonna make muscles and second from centrist but will feel any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying a. All opposed motion carried congratulations Senator Hendren your pastor bill. Committee members Senator Ballinger you said you had a short bill. Well I have a short bill that I'm going to try to run so. Hold also okay. Members I know we have some place to be but and less it turned out that it is B. five fifty five is not going to be short I would like to present. Senator entered if you could take the terror. Twenty five five. Senator Clark you're recognized for Senate bill five fifty five yes of of been trying to get this done from before the time session started. Of the Senator Hickey and I work for three sessions on a bill that made it clear that employees could have a. Farm in their vehicle. Of all employee parking lot. The if not if that's not possible that means that you're disarmed from the time you leave your home to you get all of the often many people are provinces traveling sixty miles some more of a lot of people working the night shift of driving through dangerous areas. Of and to get that passed after three sessions we agreed to had to have a of a concealed Kerry license and that you had to have a dialogue box this bill changes that out to you don't have to have a concealed Lawson's and you don't have to with a lock box you have to have it in a locked vehicle hidden from sight. The of we amended it the other day of for the department of corrections of that if an employer of is up almost a work release set of that. That the of. Not even sure what we. Amended it to but we uh again amended that with the department of corrections amendment that if you work at one those places of they don't want to make it. and understandably so too easy for somebody to. Still gun although we've already discussed the guns are there anyway but but we did amended to make them happy the reason for this and there's people who would like to testify on will have been tested on the house in. As union Pacific had a twenty eight year employee of from Arkadelphia. Of with a perfect record who was out on a train his truck caught on fire in the parking lot and that's how they determine that there was a gun in the truck you know. The along with the ninety percent the other vehicles in the parking lot that had guns on him and he lost his job and his retirement of. Perfect record. Because he had a gun in his truck. and. A nothing I can do about that. But when going to go back to real life the way we love I don't have a I don't have a caring concealed carry license nor do I want one of and I don't have a lock box. But I'll be happy to take any questions. All right you for an explanation of bill senator Johnson you're recognized for a question. So. Lock boxes I mean I can lock my console in my truck how will define was that and how do they know whether he had a lock box in his truck and I will cause trouble for. Otherwise like I said the other ninety percent to are also violating the rules. But you can lock your. Either your console or your or your glove compartment. What did not fit the fit the previous it does not know we're we're again to get it through we agreed to a law a separate blog box. Right thank you which what thought was ridiculous at the time but. Okay any other questions. Anybody here to speak for against the bill. Okay your clothes your bill senator Clark. Of I think it's common sense of and it fits held our Kansans actually live shouldn't be punished of for for being a country boy that does what country boys in Arkansas do and your vehicle is your private property I have never asked an employee ever what they have in their vehicle I'm not I have had employees never have but I've had employees that I might have said you can't carry a gun because your temper or whatever but I've never had the reason why would tell somebody you know I. I might not believe in **** but I've never went and said I'm going to search your car for **** or anything else of and your right to protect yourself is sacrosanct our make appreciate a good vote not make a motion to pass. A motion and second any discussion. All in favor of the motion say aye opposed motions carry congratulations thank you Mr thank you Committee. For calling of. What I hope we're going to get out here is is early is on time but in the session as people are predicting spring break and and the early date don't both go together of water the other but not both that being said though in fairness to. Our colleagues we need to meet this next week and it just so happens that Monday is our other regular meeting time of and Monday mornings is when we're supposed to do it of I am going some of you come in on Sunday night some of us don't. Of but I am going to suggest that we move our meeting time back to ten thirty. On Monday of and it may be a short agenda or you may need to bring your lunch that work for everyone. Well no it would be nine thirty the up. Call it up for back whatever you wanna call it but the move from nine thirty to ten thirty. Because some of us are still coming in that morning. Thank you is that gonna be difficult for you Senator Stubblefield. The. Well as. Okay. Well that work for everyone. The. Okay well we will we it may be short enough we can get out but if not we'll make it with whoever's here but. If that is good with their but I can make a command decision get in trouble during the afternoon same time as is health and education meeting but. Okay that'll be the suggestion. Prosecutors might if ever may hang around for a little bit discuss that the fifteen eighty eight with everybody that are after. Just for a few minutes. Yeah yes.