Judiciary Committee- House

Terry. 6. Judiciary will come to order chair sees a quorum members were going to be taking things kind of out of order to accommodate members who need to go and run bills and other places so the first bill we will take up today will be house bill 1597 representative Boyd you're recognized come to the table present your bill members let's turn to House Bill 1597 representative for you be recognized to present your bill thank you madam chair I appreciate the opportunity to be here to present this this bill was brought to me by constituent originally it struck the entire portion of this statue regarding pepper spray and tear gas but after discussions with the state police it made more sense to to really get to the aim of what it was trying to do and that's allow bear spray there are places in in the state where we do have bears and you might wanna. Keep your you know use that as a way to protect yourself as opposed to a gun or or something along that line so basically it increases the amount of pepper spray pepper spray that one could carry from hundred 50 amounts to 300 M. else. Members are there any questions. We have no one who is signed up to speak for against the bill representative board you're recognized to close for your bill I'm closed another person appreciate someone give me a do pass thank you. We have a motion to do pass on the 4 members is there any discussion on the motion to do pass all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no congratulations you have passed your bill. Members let's move on down to our agenda to House Bill 1619 this is also representing boards bill house bill 1619. And representative Boyd you're recognized to present your bill thank you madam chair appreciate you all accommodating me here so I can get to public health I prescription medications obtain extensive reviews of our federal government any decision to make a medication. A prescription medication a controlled substances given thoughtful consideration by that D. A. the FDA and HHS this bill ensures that prescription medications are given the bit benefit when being. Of availability in Arkansas and nationally without the overly burdensome and unnecessary red tape that of being placed in schedule 6 so schedule 6 is a category that is unique to Arkansas and it is not does not follow our federal code and so what this does is if it's gone all the way through the FDA process then it would default to not schedule 6 unless the health secretary said it does so the the so the state route fully would fully retain its authority to to move something in the schedule 6 bucket if you know the secretary of health felt like it needed to but otherwise it would not do that. Members are there any questions representative boy. Seeing no questions represent what you're recognized close for your bill I'm close from a bill and I appreciate a good vote. What are the wishes of the committee representative Smith. Members we have a motion to do pass on the floors or any discussion of the motion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it the motion carries congradulations you have passed your bill thank you. Members let's go back to the top of our agenda house bill 1014 representative right you're recognized present your bill. Representative right you're recognized to go to the table and present your bill house bill 1014. Thank you Mr chairman of pleasure be we're with you today of this legislation is dealing with our flag. And and penalties for desecration of burning of. The last time actually there was any legislation concerning the flag was 1997 and that was by Senator it senator ever to Marjorie of. But. You know this is 2021 and I and I really believe. That the people of our state want to see our flag protected. And. I answer any questions. Representive cloudy you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair over here to Iraq and so you know we all know that the Supreme Court has ruled against laws like this in the past are you anticipating that there will be challenges to the constitutionality of this bill there's possibility but inside the state of Arkansas she never went to spring court. Follow. You're recognized for follow up thank you the other thing I was curious about is that you would be listed as an unclassified misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison can you talk about how you landed on a penalty that steep for something like letting the flag set on the floor for would be an extreme that would be an extreme I think that some type of ticket or something could be written by a policeman but you know that would be an extreme collect case ma'am. Okay thank you. Members any other questions. We do have someone who is signed up to speak against the bill Mr Rosenzweig if you'll come forward you're recognized to speak against the bill oh I'm sorry represent Smith you have a question for this witness I mean a representative from. Jan you're recognized for your question representative Dr representative right what does what is your primary motivation for. Bringing this bill to Judiciary and with that before you answer. I have served our nation in uniform and the flag is very important to me I find in my home I reference the flag on on the. Every time I see it I just it does something to me especially. Because of the experiences I've had I've had but what what's your primary motivation for this bill representative Brett my my motive is is all the folks that have died for that flag. Start out with the revolutionary war only allowing for one or 2 in Vietnam Correa but there's been a lot of people that have put their lives on the line and asked I feel like the least we can do is respect our flag and not damaged or burning. Yes. Representing the call you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair. Representative ride would you also agree that those all those men that died and all those men and women that died also died for the cops constitution. I would agree but I would say this work we're speaking about a flag. In Adlai represents United States of America and every person that is going to war respected the flag from our country and. You have a constitution but I'll say this much we need to respect our flag. Smith. Receive flowers you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair. I'm here a person right. So the billing on the questions you've heard thus far and I do understand your motivation. And in several respects identified within at the same time I understand and identify those who seek our country to I send to our highest guiding principles. And in many instances when in the past and I first saw this as a child seeing you know protest and of people who is served in feeling like they had been treated wrong by the country that's the first time I ever saw and I'm maybe I'm dating myself. Saying that you know actually play out on television where people who actually served were a part of the protest in using that display and you know there's a real big sort of continuum of extreme pride and then extreme disdain to the point of burning and desecration and along that continuum there are many people who interpret desecration and talk about even protocol as being you know you know you're not supposed to wear the flag it's not supposed to be on betting it's not supposed to be on T. shirts when you're talking about that referenced. How how do we. I guess I'm wondering what your thoughts are about that because there is a continuum and at what point if we're going to say that everyone's. Reverence and respect should be at the level that you might feel or someone even beyond you who says it should be a crime punishable by a year in prison for putting it on you know using the flag is betting at what point if we start to say okay everyone should hold the same level of reverence otherwise be arrested Michael where can you help us make sense of that I can say this you know I'm a little bit older than a few of the folks and I remember the time your doctor king. It was hard time in this country but I'll say this. You know if there there's nothing absolutely nothing wrong with with the with demonstrations that's all we sometimes we we've moved forward all great Tony. But as far as our flag is concerned that is a symbol of our country so I think people just need to be real careful you know you can destroy a lot of things but you need to be very very careful in how the flag not an out and out knowing that I'll say the areas that we work in government it is another place we need to be careful with the right now we're just center and on the flag but I think that we need to hold reference and I think that people know. That. That it should be sacred. And if we will let folks know lack with the law then maybe we won't have quite as much of that. Follow up madam chair you're recognized for a follow all and in and let me be specific to because I'm from probably not that old to have seen any sort of demonstration back during the time the doctor king was alive so let me be specific I was referring to protests against the. Vietnam War. And I would see specials that would depict Vietnam veterans you know demonstrating against how they were treated demonstrating against Asian orange and that kind of thing and it got me interested actually in that history. But when I think about that I think about what you've just attested to you know as being your motivation again what about people who have actually served. Having the right to demonstrate even that to that level in believing that you know. All rights are sacred and it's been violated by the government of what why would we do something to take away their right or any other Americans to protest in a in a way that the Supreme Court says is legal well we go back to 1968 to about 1972 that was a very very bad time and there was Plant burn all great during that time of our country. It was a disgrace. It was a disgrace because we had a man that had died in that war. And then people would burn a flag for mandate or 9 out. I just can't see it and on. I just feel like that we need to do all we can as citizens not only to protect our flag what to call space and to love one another as we have. Been told. But our flag is very very very important and like say it is a symbol for our country and I just feel like it's the right thing to do I would be here with you if I didn't really believe in what we're doing here today. Hi. I see no other questions Mr Rosenzweig you're recognized. Jefferson sort of Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers has as a certain membership already recognized under current of the United States Supreme Court precedent in Texas versus Johnson and in United States versus like when this is clearly violator of the first amendment expressive speech the Supreme Court held in both cases both of those cases back some 30 years ago 2530 years ago now I would point out that justice Scalia among other people was in the majority holding that it that such laws violated the first amendment of and so obviously it's it would be challenging course the first amendment applies everywhere in the United States and so it's it's that's very clear but let's pretend that this wasn't unconstitutional on that basis there are some other problems with this bill. Of the give you an example on page 1 her actually think there's only 1 page of line 27 of Parker of 26 and 27 any part of a flag main of any substance for of any size okay any substance at all so for instance you had a cake decorated with the stars and stripes on it and someone 8 it that is mutilation since you're saying any substance or of any size no matter how small or any or any part of a flag what if you just had something that was just some red and white stripes is that part of the flag. This would go wait this this would have those of application problems interpretive problems et cetera even if it wasn't lately on Constitutional. Members are there any questions of this witness. Thank you Mr Rosenzweig for your testimony. Representive right you're recognized to close for years and now what I think that he was referring to a speech but this is a flag is not speech and it is a symbol of our country. And I I really do wish that we do a little survey soul searching here. Because this is a tremendous. This means a tremendous something to the people in the fall and died for our country. And I would really appreciate a good vote ignition. You very much. Represent Smith you're recognized. I appreciate this bill and I would move for do pass. Members we have a motion to do pass on the pool. Is there any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no. The noes have it the motion fails members we're going to turn to House Bill 1507 Mister written I mean representive wouldn't you're recognized House Bill 1507. Representive wooden you're recognized to present 1507 thank you committee for the opportunity this is a bill. I'm bringing on behalf of the department of corrections relative to some corrections in the law concerning of sex offenders ability to reside with the manner info the other purposes what it simply does is says this is will not be permitted unless it's specified by the court and I have Mr bridge over a member of the department of community corrections a minimum chairman from the agency to answer any questions on but that some some of the some of the court have a question the phrase in the current legislation as it relates to first offenders in this attempt to correct that so I'll be happy to answer any questions or Mr bread show will from the from the agency. Members are there any questions. Mr Reginald do you have anything you need to add to the explanation of the bill no ma'am you're right shall director division community correction what this bill simply does is bring the statue for probationers in line with the statute that applies to parolees and makes it less confusing. Seeing no questions and no one else is signed up to speak. On the can't miss once and I'm sorry of miss Watson if you come forward signed up to speak against the bill. I'll okay my apologies. All right members of representative what you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you Mr chairman I think we've explained the bill is rather simple and it's just a matter of cleaning up some language in making make it easier for the court to be able to handle these type of cases is they may have and again thank you committee expected like I have a good vote thank you. Members representing witness close first bill what is the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass there's a motion to do pass on the floors or any discussion of the motion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it the motion carries congradulations you have passed your bill thank you thank you Committee representative wouldn't if you'll stay just right there I believe you have another one. House bill 1098 members if you'll turn to house bill 1098. I believe representing Britain this is a bill that you presented earlier in the session is that correct yes. The representative wouldn't you are recognized to present house bill 1098 thank you chairman this is the bill that we had a and I pulled Allen to okay out because or lower questions about it what we did we went back and alleviated everything in the bill. That didn't to have your rectally of pertaining to the if you will notification. Let me just give you a little background on how this is come of that help we in my district and then representative 11 district. Which is what we'll all mine we have a loner of the of daycare who was married to a sex offender. He served time in the penitentiary he was a level 2. At the time it when he was convicted he served time in the bill to ensure. She later purchased another piece of property and Montejo of B. B. and then she also is building a third facility. The only one time did she ever notify either in the one in representive 11 district in Austin or meant did she ever notify the parents that her husband was a sex offender. So they have created an outrage over this so I contacted DHS and we got to looking into it and DHS did not have a specific rule about notifying parents the 2 children we're going to be in a facility. We're the owner or operator or employee's family or sex offender and I just felt and I feel like that we need to protect the children we need to protect the children's and then we also need to have a comfort level for the parents. If they will leave their children there that's fine. The lease they have been made aware of the fact that 66 vendor could be in that facility even though this law rule or statute presenting to you bill presented to you today also states they cannot be in that premises in that premises with the child is precious. So this simply balls down to 2 things we're protecting the children and we're protecting the parents. And we're predicting the parents children. And is simply is simply states it's an act to restrict the circumstances under which a sex offender may be permitted our own or near the premises of a child care facility to require notice to certain potions persons when a sex offender is on the premises of a child care facility. And for other purposes then it reads to restrict the circumstances under which sex offender may be permitted or near the premises or childcare facility to require notice of certain persons when the sex offender is on the premises in the end and concerning registered sex offender is the definition here over the immediate family members. Of an employee of an owner or whatever an immediate family member means a person who resides in the home of or is a spouse parent child brother sister mother in law father in law Senate bill calendar little brother in law merger of are trying to kill facility or an employee of that facility now you're gonna hear from the criminal defense lawyers I'm sure relative to this you know we're using continually permission no we're not continually permission go we're simply making them aware that there is a sex offender they will have access or will or has or could to that facility to their children. This is a parent bill this is a child bill this is protecting children. So that's the essence of the bill the manager will be happy to answer any questions. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we have a couple of people who have signed up. Whether Maskell at. There's no questions at this time but we have a couple of people who signed up to speak against the bill miss Swanson you've signed up to speak against the bill. Yes sure Mr residence where you're recognized to speak against the bill. Jeff Rosenzweig Arkansas Association criminal defense lawyers and I understand what representative would miss trying to get at but it goes way too broadly it includes employed mere employees look at line 33 in line 35 of the first page this is discipline really basically a bill of attainder or corruption of the blood you're talking about not not someone related to the owner not the owner's husband not the owner's wife but some young lady who's a minimum wage employee at a daycare facility or oppose the minimum wage who now is if the whole world is going to have to be told that her father or brother or mother in law or someone is a convicted sex offender not the employee not anyone who has any of. Non trespass right to be there or something like that just the simple employee of who. Who who is now going to be shamed I or actually probably rendered unemployable because what owner is going to want to have to make this announcmenet to his his or her customer base that she that they have an employee who's who has a family member who is a registered sex offender that's of any practically any owner is going is going or operator of a daycare is not going to want to hire this person or is gonna want to fire this person not for anything that they did but for something a family member. And whether you think whether or not you think that it's a good idea with regard to the owners and operators it is certainly not a good idea with regard to mere employees. Representative rich when you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair just quickly out of curiosity have you representative wouldn't have you discussed this particular issue and and your problems with this particular language. This raises right I think that's the question. Oh I'm sorry I'm sorry I thought you were dressing here I sent an email to representative Wooten and he responded back that he would essentially that he was satisfied with the bill as currently written but I expressed it to him in email essentially the same sentiment so I just expressed here. All right thank you represent would you want to. Respond what responded. He represented to me about the sex offenders and sale. Just replying to him that the bill is is was for the children to pay protect the children and protect the parents so that's that's the essence that's what that's what this is all about so the the responded thank you gentlemen thank you madam chair. Representative Clowney you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair so Mr Rosenzweig would it be fair to summarize your views is saying that that this is a bill whose consequence may well be preventing folks who have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law from getting employment that is correct thank you Mr. All members any other questions. Thank you Mr president thank you for your testimony miss Watson do you wish to come forward and testify against the bill if so come on down to the table and state your name and then you may make your statement. Good afternoon my name's Carla Swanson. I'm with an organization called Arkansas time after time. Regarding the children. We've got children in schools that are not protected from their teachers. I'll be glad teacher now this pregnant by one of her students there's not a law that would have protected her or even him. So there is not a law that is going to protect the children except for you keep an eye on what is going on around you. So making this bill is going to hurt to the employees. And everybody around them is not going protect the children. If an employee forget something at work like I did not too long ago actually I had a flat tire. My son's a level 2 sex offender. He was nice enough to drive all the way from Conway to little rock while I was at work to change my flat tire. I work with all women. Now this bill gets passed is not going to stop it from getting other ones similar past just like it does that mean I was going to have to go in tell my employees my co workers my son is going to be up here he's gonna stay. Pop into the office Hey mom I'm here. Walk back out change my flat tire come back in and say mom is fixed I'm going back home. 9 I would have had to told everybody that I work with that my son was going to be there. If I even worked at a daycare center that's all he was going to be there for was to change my flat tire not a child was going to be harmed. This bill my also even leave lead to warning. Stores sex offenders about to walk into Walmart. About to walk into a bank you may be standing in line at Starbucks sex offender could be right behind you. Do we need to start wearing labels on ourselves to warn people around us who we are what we've done in our past. This could definitely be a slippery slope. Down a very bad road. And you know we don't know anything about the people that are around our children. There are people who are not on the registry they're not even in our site that are doing harm to the children every single day and this could even be people that the children even live with parents uncles aunts. Family friends and there's no way of knowing because these people we'll pass a background check. There's nothing that can stop them from harming a child. Register citizens. Can't seem to be forgiven. For something that they've done. My son. I was 20 years old when he got caught with child ****. He is now 30. On his way to getting his like Christian license. He got engaged in December. This lady knows everything that he's done. She has forgiven him she knows he'll meet her of even talked about it. She's not afraid and she shouldn't be. Just like 95 percent of every register citizen on the registry. Are not bad people. I keep saying over and over again is the 5 percent that we don't know anything about or not NAPR sorry. Is the rest of the people who are not on the registry that we need to be worried about there's only 5 percent of the people who are on the registry they're the ones they re offend but is the 95 percent that are on the registry to keep getting punished every single day. Don't believe me I sent an email to representative Smith. He agrees with me so yeah or run you greed that I descend the thank you I can send it to anybody who wants to know the statistics. I've also got ideas on how to make life easier for sex offender and I've sent a few of you those ideas if anybody else wants to hear all clearly send you that email to. The thing of it is how long do we go to keep punishing a sex offender over and over again time after time. Before we finally. Let them live their life. And to get on with their life. My son wants to take his new wife on a cruise. A simple cruise. Federal will not let him do this. Instead of spending time finding ways to punish sex offenders. How about we find a way to help victims. To educate the public. Maybe even find a better way for a register citizen to live. I know right now Arkansas is one of the state sits behind on getting rape kits done. Why don't we focus on that. Thank you. Thank you miss Swanson representative wouldn't you're recognized to close for your bill. Representive what you're recognized to close for your bill turn your microphone on and. You'll be recognized thank you madam chairman. Well as I said it's this 2 points this is this legislation is intended to protect the children and then notify the parents. If we want on the premise of what she spoke about we just say well whatever. Is the it's better to do something. Them to not do anything at all to to protect these children we have failed avoid in the law and the rules and we needed him we're down here to protect and care for. And that's our responsibility at least the way I see. And I'm up I'm not preaching to you but I'm asking for just common sense to prevail is it relates to this legislation. Again the manager minute it covers 2 things it covers the children. Who we dearly love and care for and it covers the parents who they dearly love and care for their children and I also I thank they have a right to know. Thank you madam chairman. Members representive witness clothes furs bill ordered wishes of the committee. Represent is very you're recognized. Motion do pass. Members we have a motion to do pass on the floors or any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it the motion carries congradulations you have passed your bill thank you. Represent committee. Representative Clowney. I had a discussion on the motion it in see about I'm sorry I apologize I didn't see. Members. Representative McKenzie. Members let's turn to House Bill 1648. Representative McKenzie you're recognized come to the table and present your bill. Thank you madam chair again begins represented district 92 I'd like to thank you just a minute we have amendment that is going to be passed out first. Well the amendments being passed out on. This bill. Anybody who is here for house bill 1486 representative Gonzalez's indicated to me he is not running that bill so if there are people here that bill will not run today. Representative can see you're recognized to present your amendment to house bill 1648. Thank you madam chair and thank you committee members what this amendment does to 1648 you'll see the first section on page 2 were deleting the lines at the bottom of page 227 and 36 and then the top of the page 3 we're deleting those and substituting some other language here this is really not this portion here is not a substantive change we're just making the language a little bit more clear for the guardian should the ward if the guardian she says to limit or restrict visitation with the ward you'll see we get to the committee the bill that the that the war can request a hearing before the judge and so what this is doing is just making it clear to the guardian of the ward that we we need you to assist this ward in scheduling and requesting that hearing the second portion of the amendment were you see on page 3 we're deleting the lines 29 through 35 again section language this is substantive here what we are doing we have changed the portion we have removed the portion that where a guardian or board can request a review hearing every 6 months on the guardianship we're taking that out really the thought is. The guardian or the work can really request a hearing at any point on a matter of concern so removing that portion and also we've removed one of the portion there removed the or interested person and just keeping it here on in this language to the guardian or the ward may request here anytime so that covers the amendment language would be happy to take any questions. Members are there any questions of the amendment. Was the pleasure of the committee on the amendment representative Gazaway has a motion to adopt the amendment Sir any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed the amendment has been adopted you're now recognized to present House Bill 1648 as amended thank you madam chair and committee members and I'd like to I'll just give you a brief introduction and then I'm like to go ahead and put this over here to our expert in the area judge Hertzfeld he can give you more of the meat of this bill as he works with this regularly what this is this bill is and guardianship reform bill and it encompasses a fairly wide area as far as it addresses the hearing process so when especially with regard to emergency hearing so to make some changes with regard to that which I let the judge speak to it also introduces a ward's bill of rights and some other states have begin begun moving to these ward bill of rights or just adopting similar language just recognizing that although the bulk of our guardianships go well these these guardians are providing really a labor of love but there's a small fraction where things get off course where maybe the guardian gets a little bit too aggressive maybe with restricting little arbitrarily restrict restricting visitation and some other manner since the goal of this word bill of rights will get into here is really to provide the most the least restrictive guardianship for our wards to recognize their dignity these are folks Medicaid that request this we've got minors present this reference represents our adult wards folks who live the whole life establishing these relationships earning these assets can again a guardianship can be over a person or property so this is recognizing as best as we can with each guardianship to make it. Recognizing their dignity and. Treating them with respect these are most vulnerable constituents really these people once they come to appoint their life when the court has to rule that they're incapacitated and in need of a guardianship so that is the purpose of this bill and with that I will pass this over to the judge thank you represent judge you're recognized please state your name for the record thank you madam chairman a chairperson hi my name is Robert Hurst filled on the circuit judge from selling County I've been on the bench for little over 12 years now I currently have preside mostly over probate cases which as you all know guardianships are part of I before that I was a prosecuting attorney I have 6 years in private practice before that during that when I focused primarily on probate and family law so I have experience on both sides of the bench on these issues the first one I think represent McKenzie form allow me to assist in presenting the bill and also for allow me to help work on the bill I'm here to her request to assist and answer questions but I'm also here on behalf of the judicial council this is a judicial council bill for lack of a better term the judges are in favor of that probate judges we discussed it many of the changes we've been talking about for some years a particularly related to the technical aspects in so it's our pleasure to work with represent begins because she clearly has a heart for this legislation for folks who need all the help they can get just basically to the Bill can can be broken down into 2 parts although they are obviously interrelated the first is to clarify and establish the rights of adult wards an attempt to maximize their ability to have good quality of life and their ability to have positive relationships and also to clearly establish the process where if there is concerns or if there are problems that they can get back in front of the judge and the judge help the family or their friends or their guardians and wards resolve those issues. Is which benefits the ward obviously but also the guardian to make sure that there is a clear process and its spell spelled out of relatively simply to make sure they can get in front of the judges judges we hear some of you may know maybe all of you know the guardian ships once they're opened they stay open until they're no longer needed and so we it's common for us to hear the cases after guardianship is open in fact more often than not I'd say lawyer is not even involved in those review hearing so we have them pretty often in fact I had to this morning so it's it's a common practice but just put it in the law in less makes make sure that everybody involved knows what the process is so you don't have to be scared to go ask for help or to be heard the second part is a lot more technical but is really important as far as establishing how rights how these rights work but also how the guardianships begin to improve and clarify the process for not only regular guardian ships but also for emergency guardianship and temporary guardianships and the languages is a little confusing we're trying to do what we can to simplify strict make it straightforward and help people beginning that process which can be complicated and and devastating enough that when the law is not as clear as a lot of the that makes it worse. 3 words or 2 words they represent McKenzie use that I want to echo or the the words dignity and respect in this we believe this bill in it empowers people who have less capacity but still have the ability and and not have the right and not and do have the right to make clear the right to have relationships that are positive and helpful and we're all better off when there's more people involved so long as those are positive relationships on the on the flip side of that if the guardian determines or someone involved in that an individual's life who is not healthy or as destructive or are seeking to take advantage of them there's a process for them laid out to how to handle that which I believe and the judges believe is the best way forward to be with you would direct they tried to communicate first with the ward and either explained to them all work out with them a process or explain to them why it's not OK or what's not healthy for them to be around that individual in it that. Doesn't work as well as you might we might like which I think in most cases clear communication will work but if it doesn't then there's a process for either the ward or the guardian to come before the judge and say Hey there's an issue with you know this this person acts and we want you to we want to put this issue let you make that decision that helps the ward to get before the court to be heard which is a vital part fundamental part of our due process but also I believe helped will help the guardian because then if there's ongoing issues related to this the judge will be the one who made the decision and then that guardian can always point back to the judge and say Hey the judge said this person is not good for you to be around that can really takes a lot of the burden off of the guardian on the final decision. That's the basic sum up Abby happy to answer questions at this time. Members are there any questions of either one of these individuals. Seeing no questions we have no one signed up to speak against the bill representative McKenzie you're recognized close for your bill. Thank you madam chair and thank you committee members for your attention this afternoon as you can see this is the intent of this bill is to provide the least restrictive environment for these boards we saw even with COVID 19 and and the isolation that that resulted because of the need for safety in those things and it took a toll on these folks it took a toll on them it took a toll on their loved ones and so that is I. here's to we recognize that relationships are valuable for the ward for their quality of life their desire to keep going to get up and not just exist but to live but also for their loved ones because these words of course provide value and give love just like they receive it so that's the purpose of the bill and we ask for a motion to pass. Members representative McKenzie has close for her bill with the wishes of the committee I have a motion to do pass by representative. As amended by representative Nicks is there any discussion of that motion. All in favor of the motion do pass as amended police say aye. Any oppose ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill good to see you. Representative guess what. We may interrupt you at some point is other members from the. House come in but you're recognized now we have. So members if you'll turn to House Bill 1606. House Bill 1606 representative guess what you're recognized come to the table and percent house bill 1606. What's. Thank you madam chair members you should have House Bill 1606 in front of you. A simple bill simply says that a court reporter may require the payment for the remainder of the final cost the transcript be submitted before the delivery the transcript currently the law says someone request transcript they have to pay for the court reporter can require them to pay half of that amount up front but if there's just to clarify before they have to deliver the transcript was sometimes can be very voluminous depending on how long the proceedings went and can take a lot of work and effort on the court of the court on the part of the court reporter love their time in miss these court reporters prepare these transcripts after hours because they're busy during the day court reporting for the judge that before they have to deliver the full transcript that payment would have to be made so that's what it does not happy to take any questions. Members are there any questions. You saying no questions represent guess what you're recognized close for your bill thank you madam chair I'm close for the bill make a motion to pass members we have a motion to do pass on the floors or any discussion on the motion. The first representative Richmond you're recognized. Thank you represent Gazaway for bringing this bill my wife worked as a court reporter for many years California Maine North Carolina Virginia all over the country. And this was one of the most frustrating things that she ever had to tolerate this after the incredible amount of work that you would put into these transcripts and everything deliver the transcripts and then nobody is paying and this is a good bill and I appreciate you bringing this bill forward thank you. Members any other discussion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill. Members let's turn our attention now to. House Bill 1606. I 1605 sorry 1605. Represent Gazaway you're recognized president house bill 1605 thank you madam chair of another very simple bill concerns a payment for a court transcript it basically says that the judge who heard the case. Is exempt from having to pay for the transcript. And. That all that you would think that would go without saying but I don't know if there's been some issues between the judges in his on court reporter really not sure what what happened here but the judge who heard the case ought to have access that I'm to pay for it for the transcript of that hearing so that's what the bill does not happy to try to answer any questions. Per se Gazaway I apologize for that just struck me. Having been in the court system all those years it is construct me funny and I apologize for laughing members are there any questions a representative Gazaway. Seeing no questions we have. Only one person who signed up to speak for the bill I'm assuming you have nothing else to add is that correct. That's correct. I guess what you're recognized close for your bill I'm close for the bill make a motion to pass. Members we have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion on the motion representative Richmond you're recognized. Represent Gazaway this is a terrible building should remember Robert. One says representive Richmond I hope you're never in front of a judge. And if you are get your toothbrush ready as they say. Members with that we do have a motion on the floor motion to do pass all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you have passed your bill. The next bill representative Gazaway your honor rolls house bill 1616 you're recognized to present house bill 1616 thank you madam chair of this bill concerns payment for. District Court judges who fill in for just other District Court judges around the state when they need someone to. A bill in a vacancy in up currently the law that's on the books provides for the reimbursement of certain expenses 4 circuit court judges if they fill in for another circuit court judge you for whatever reason can't hold court with that's conflict or whether it's an illness or whatever it may be and basically we just make the existing statutes that currently apply for circuit court judges apply for District Court judges this happens from time to time around the state yeah District Court judges that. Can't preside over particular case or again are suffering from an illness and they need someone to fill in for a and it also specifically addresses retired. Judges as being eligible to serve in that capacity to fill in for judge so we have several retired judges around the state and this kind of allows them to use their expertise and years of experience to fill in for others that are currently on the bench when they can't when they can't be there so with that I'm happy to answer any questions. Members are there any questions a representative Gazaway. Seeing no questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill representative guess what you're recognized close for your bill I'm close for the bill make a motion to pass. Members we have a motion to do pass on the force or any discussion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. All opposed please say no the ayes have it the bills passed congratulations. Thank you manager thank you Chris. Members for just going to hang on for just a few minutes hoping getting text from the other members who. Of who have bills before us some of them are on their way so let's just take a couple minutes and all go back to those individuals of representive Lundstrum just in time. Represent luncheons here to present house bill 1525 so members if you'll turn to House Bill 1525. Representative Lundstrum you're recognized to present your bill thank you colleagues mask Roger Smith to come the table please with me yes. Running in heels is always fun. Collins this is a pretty straightforward bill. Additional your. Mister Smith. He may be in the waiting area. If you pull your microphone down just a little bit and a little soft and some members may have a hard time I'm hearing a lot of feedback I don't want to. Senate the center right. In the room all right hang on just one moment I think Mr Smith. You'd like to come down in. Have a seat next representive Lundstrum you'll be recognized. What we go. All right representative Lundstrum you're now recognized to present house bill 1525 thank you. Ladies and gentlemen this is a pretty straightforward bill this is does not have anything to do to prohibit medical marijuana this basically has to do with intoxication and Transportation. This involves. The ministry. It's not pro or against it basically clarifies what police officers can do if they should find a violation under our current laws it's straightforward. If a person is intoxicated it will allow them to deal with that situation it also allows for a person who has merit medical marijuana to transport their marijuana. Up to 5 ounces. It does not allow them to transported to another state we don't have any judicial over that state. When we passed or no smoking of marijuana we did not put teeth into that law so now when someone is approach to is intoxicated or who is smoking in public there's no way our police officers can handle that situation This allows them to do so. With that I'll entertain any questions. The representative Clowney you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so looking at this bill representative Lundstrum I see there's a list of places you referred to the places prohibited by Amendment 98 can you just give us a quick rundown of what those places are. I have a list to. School bus daycare alcohol treatment facility community center. Correction facility in a public place. Pretty much any place you wouldn't have you would have no smoking you have no smoking marijuana any marijuana facility where you purchased marijuana you're not allowed to smoke so just any place you would not smoke a cigarette. Don't smoke marijuana follow up you're recognized for a follow up I'm and I may be wrong in these places are included I was trying to do a little bit of cross referencing so correct me if I'm wrong but the way that I'm reading it places the House individuals with developmental disabilities would be included in this legislation churches would be included in this legislation so I'm imagining what will this mean that folks with intellectual disabilities won't be able to use medicinal marijuana if they are residential remember that legislation is already passed this doesn't we're not going into any of the previous legislation this only involves public intoxication in any transportation it's coming into the state we're not going into Amendment 98 or involving anybody what is current law I'm not taking away anybody's medical marijuana use none of that is I'm I'm not touching any of that it's only involves. Actual intoxication. And if you transport more than those 5 ounces which is current law okay one more follow up you're recognized thank you sorry swimmer followed in and this may be best for Roger and can you tell me a little bit about how we judge intoxication by marijuana I know obviously there's blood alcohol content you know we can test all of that with alcohol how do we do the same for marijuana. My name's Roger Smith I represent the for order of police. There is no particular test mainly just looking at observation of somebody's actions are obviously those of somebody that's intoxicated or inebriated they might approach that person and for example if the one of the one of the of prohibitions is they're not supposed to be in a a medical marijuana dispensary in that condition so they would simply escort them out and so it's strictly by observation there is no particular test like a breathalyzer for DWI. Representative call and you're recognized for a question. Thank you managers so read the top of that second page it says. Be intoxicated or due to the use of medical marijuana. I'm thinking that might be a typo but I think it's kind of substantive right can you explain what that means. Actually that is that is just part of the intoxication it is not directed towards somebody if somebody intoxicated when they're over if they of over you've used is not somebody if you're using medical marijuana in using it properly you're not going to be intoxicated member somebody's using medical marijuana somebody's using it for pain medication somebody if if somebody's intoxicated and it's a opioid and they're using it properly you're not going to know that they're intoxicated. Follow. You're recognized for a follow up. And I do understand what that would be if they were saying it be intoxicated due to the use but at least the version that I'm seeing here says be intoxicated or due to the use. Is that what's intended. It's intended to focus on intoxicated. Okay I don't I just don't quite understand that phrase I guess madam chairman if I could have a point of order I believe you have we've we've done something out of order here there should be something from BLR. To remove language on this class A. and class C. we don't have any amendments should be one amendment from bill are we have we have no amendments okay and if they should pass today I would like to have amendment on the Senate side that removes the class A. misdemeanor and only goes with classy. You can handle it on the Senate side or you can pull your bill down today and get your amendment and bring it back on Thursday. Make it clear. You. I think if you get your amendment and just bring it and presented at the table on Thursday that's what I'm I'm fine with that but I did make a promise that I would remove that I would like to keep that promise so I'm sorry remove what I I did make a promise that I would remove that classe and I would like to keep that promise well would you like to pull your bill down today and bring your amendment in your bill on Thursday the chair will allow him to I'm fine with that have been engrossed because I'd like to make sure that folks know that I kept that promise okay. Are there any other questions so while we're on it so we can I can make sure if there's any questions paying on just a minute we gotta get our or we got to get everything in order if you're wanting to amend your bill I will with the committee's permission will allow you to pull the bill down today and be reset for Thursday. So why don't we I see no one objecting to that course of action so what we're going to do because that may change the questioning of your bill so let's what you put down nail and pick back up Thursday with your amendment that may change the course of questions are thank you let's do that and I will make sure that he gets set and just remind the committee will have a lot of bills on Thursday but that's okay that's what we're here for so with that members will allow representive Lundstrum to pull or bill down for amendment will allow her to put it back on the agenda for Thursday thank you representive Lundstrum thank you colleagues thank you for your indulgence. All right members let me get a hold of a couple of folks who are still on our agenda who said that they would be here and let me see if I can find them so just. There we go representive right you are hiding back behind a pillar. Members western house bill 1327 house bill 1327 representative Brian you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you madam chair my computer. Share members committee a house bill 1327. Is amended the statute to allow a concealed handgun. Held by current or former district judge circuit court judge court of appeals judge Supreme Court justice with a valid license to carry concealed handgun underneath statute of 573301. The reason I did this statute is aye I contend that judges are elected and have to carry out the most important part of our judicial process whether you're district judge in your your impacting the the lives of a family members through divorce or through other sensitive emotional issues and altering that family's life or your sentencing a person to prison for a. For a long time and affecting that family's life those judges carry that burden that we ask of them. And do so with the inability to carry protection with them through prohibited places so the statute that I'm asking to man 573120 as a citizen they can carry that they can get a license and they can carry anywhere that you're I could carry they get an enhanced and carry anywhere you're I can carry however unlike believe prosecuting attorneys law enforcement with extra years expe of experience they do not have that ability to carry that into a prohibited place so what this bill does is seek to remedy that that way they have the ability to protect themselves at all times we've got a circuit judge up in my area that's had to. 2 issues one regarding a threat from somebody the place in prison they try to do attempt to hire somebody to take his life in another that he met on the way into his chambers. There need to be able to protect themselves if they choose to do so we should not hold back society so with that I'll take any questions. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we have no one who is books representative calling you're recognized for a question. Yeah I guess representative Brian I just don't know that I'm saying that the need here because you have judges like you said you can get the the license the enhanced care if they want to are you seeing the the current state of laws being inadequate is the feedback we're getting from the judicial council they weighed in on this bill the they remain neutral on its all the all the as I'm told that the shiny suits have an opinion of have remained neutral on this bill I would say it is inadequate because when they when they they cross that barrier into a prohibited place the quickly criminal doesn't have you know their mindset is I'm going to get this judge who did this to my family. Because I take no responsibility for themselves or maybe they didn't do it but they took a a care giver where they put a loved one in prison for 20 years and they're convinced they didn't do it so I'm gonna get retribution will that judge walks to a point of a prohibited place and being a judge being a law abiding citizen he's going to disarm himself with this bill I to do is if he feels that there is a threat maybe the sheriff's office told in a there's a credible threat against her life we're monitoring. This bill allow him to carry that be on the prohibited place in order to protect themselves because the criminal is not going to respect the same barriers the judgment. You need to follow up represent Collins. Any other questions. Member saying no other questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill. Senate bright you're recognized to close for your bill thank you madam chair of members this is just the a common sense I think we're giving members of our society that we entrust the most to be able to protect themselves in the event that we were asking them to do and yet jeopardy's their life thank you for a good vote. Representative Brian his close for his bill representative Crawford you're recognized. Yes madam chair I make a motion for du Plessis please. Members we have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion of the motion. All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it the motion carries congratulations you have passed your bill represent right well we have you let's turn to House Bill 1329 house bill 1329 and you're recognized to present your bill thank you madam chair. House bill 1329 PM. I think a lot of questions since the this is the context of the bill is not presented in the bill you have to look at the statute as a whole we're doing is we're adding the 1 word felony in in front of the controlled substance of possession conviction because a lot of district judges are so or requiring the criminal sealing of records to go into misdemeanor classifications so judges are if you look at statute 16 deaths 90 this 1405 there is a statue will provision to seal the records of a misdemeanor offense and you can do that as long as they pay their fees they've they've they've served their sentence or if it moves into a different classification misdemeanor such as assaults or higher classifications you have to jump through an extra few hoops to get that record sealed of 14 does absorb Fortino 6 goes into felony sealing of records and it's a whole different set of procedures when you going to 1407 it just talks about special procedures for controlled substance of possession conviction since there is no misdemeanor or felony distinction if if you get a misdemeanor charge for controlled substance of of of a joint stuck in your ashtray the judges will apply this statute which is is really in my opinion not the intent of of this body to make those in a misdemeanor classifications so with this bill attempts to do is just apply this statute to the felony convictions of a controlled substance statute I visited with all the stakeholders they they were neutral on the bill and with that I'll take any questions. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we have no one who signed up to speak for against the bill representative bright you're recognized close for your bill. Thank you mentor I'm closed. All members represent the bride is close for bill for his bill what's the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion to do pass please say aye. Any opposed say no ayes have it congratulations you have passed your bill thank you. Members that concludes our agenda for today. Let me. And I will send these out to you but just to give you fair warning we are up to. 14 bills for Thursday. So I'm giving you fair warning of because we have decided we're not meeting on Tuesday the 20 third for those of you who follow house judiciary this committee will not meet Tuesday afternoon the 20 third of so be prepared I will send those bills out to you and with that thank you for your work today we are adjourned.