Judiciary Committee - Senate

Thank you Committee Jane English senator district thirty four and now this is a an act to amend the law concerning individuals listed as mandated reporters and shame Vaught way has worked hard on this so I will turn this over to you. Thank you Senator English Mr chairman kind of get brought into this not intentionally the original version of the bill got amended and when it did The Amendment there was an error in the amendment that struck out that higher ed institutions basically set our into higher ed institutions would no longer be mandatory reporters which concerned us because we want to we want to be mandatory reporters we train all of our staff being mandatory reporters because we obviously have a lot of camps and other events where we have minor age students on our campuses so in talking Senator English represent eleven and the staff we were able to get the amendment to fix this this in in represent eleven purpose came out of an issue at a school district where you had we can have a circumstance we have a volunteer coach or volunteer athletic trainer this is not targeted at someone who just come to read to a class this is someone who's going to to spend a significant amount of time with students on campus and so it would require that they are now a mandatory reporter the training is available online at talk to Mike Hernandez with administrators association he sent me the link this through a U. M. S. to put it together and it's on the Arkansas ideas website so that these volunteers you're going to spend that amount of time can be trained so I'll be glad to answer any questions but that's the basis of wine we became involved in this fixes our issue as the engrossed version please center is a mandatory reporter. Questions from the committee. Senator Stubblefield. Mr. All these workers go through a background check. Volunteer it did did not only if their licensed I don't know for volunteer does I'm not the expert to give you that answer but they're they're gonna be working with children right right. I can I can find that you think that the. I'll find out and get you the answer because part of. Senator I believe that they do have to have a background check in the in all the schools before you get to be a voluntary they do a background check make sure there's nobody right. Thank you I don't know that higher ed but I do know about the the I. K. through twelve okay. Any other questions from the committee. Thank you is there anyone in the audience would like to speak for or against the bill. See non Senator English your clothes for your bill close. Committee which. The motion to pass from center Johnson second from Senator Ballenger any discussion here none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed ocean Kerry congratulations Senator English you have passed representive eleven bill thank you thank. Next up I see Senator Hester in the room we will take house bill thirteen seventeen. Thanks we've sent you with prosecutors office. Come in yes. Do we need to have someone getting. I don't know if they're watching your area there is. Hello. Thank you Mr chairman members this bill is regarding porch piracy and just of a layman's definition of that is When when someone delivers a package United States postal service Walmart Amazon UPS FedEx they deliver a package to your property and someone someone comes and steals that still that basically there's there's the current law doesn't provide enough deterrent we're seeing that. Increased consistently so this bill just makes it a Class D. felony and it's something that you're not dealing with the constituent you will be soon as this becomes a more and more popular thing and we just need to a. I get it get it handled and Mr she would probably have something more intelligent say. I don't know about the intelligent part to my name's Daniel hsu prosecuting attorney for Sebastian County twelve judicial district and I'm also the chair person for the Arkansas prosecuting attorneys association I've testified on this bill in the house Judiciary passed the house ninety five two zero this bill in real simple terms defines postal package it defines residential occupy bill structure currently ge obviously the last two were already in the Arkansas criminal code and you know the the complaints that today we hear probably everybody within the sound of my voice either has had something stolen from your porch or know somebody who had something stolen from the porch it just applies to residential structures it does not apply to commercial and it's just a day general deterrence bill that to would place any person on reasonable notice if you if there is a postal package on the front porch of a residence or an apartment If you if you steal that you can be prosecuted for felony theft and the quite simply don't do that. I'm happy to answer any questions. Questions from the committee. Senator Stubblefield. Thank you issue what. One twenty seven Page two. The definition of livestock. Pardon the definition of livestock Page twenty line twenty seven Page two. That's that's already that's already language yes Sir that's in current law. An automated don't know I don't want you know I never so it will. Pardon what we're on that topic what would be the definition of livestock. Probably is going to be that long list of a poor sign aquiline. Bovine and the that list can go on for you know like five or six different words but I don't know that would be my guess okay thank you Mr chairman. Other questions from the committee. Senator Hendren. Thank you Mr chairman so of. I see there's a dollar limit already in the law for some of these things but this is saying regardless of the value it's a Class D. felony that is correct I mean is there any concern about kids to. I don't understand I'm going to take a package up somebody's that table that they're gonna have a felony well obviously that if it's kids is that that be handled juvenile court and. I mean this is a the General Motors General to Terence just don't don't take it I mean right again the this speaks to the worst cases like I've had people tell me about ostomy medical supplies that were taken and I'm sure since they opened that they they threw in the garbage bins NO two three hundred dollars would only be a misdemeanor under the old law okay all right. Other questions from the committee. Seeing none is there anyone here is in the audience speak for against the bill. Sam Nunn. Motion to pass from Senator us the second from Senator Ballenger any discussion from the Committee. A no no for the motion signify by saying aye. All against motion carried congratulations Senator Hester you have passed. Referred house bill thirteen seventeen representative Johnson's bill. Scene no non committee members currently here of. I'm going to run these next two bills and my name of Senator Hendren can you take the chair. One sixty six. Almost three of six four. Six. I don't. They'll take with okay I just. What. Okay. DES Senator Clark you're recognized president Senate bill three oh six. Thank you Senator Hendren of. Our room re referred three oh six back to committee A for purpose of amendment after we passed it through committee. Of the I can't remember their names. But the The folks that run our convention centers. contacted me and ask for amendment and sent me that amendment and a staff has it we passed out. Okay pass the amendment out of your garden explain are you so you're going to drop an amendment to this now yes okay going to explain the amendment there Senator Clark. Of. The Amendment of. As of. Buildings and mute misplay owned or maintained buildings or leased or to be used for special events. Of what it does is it is can I get you Senator Clark pull Michael it'll close there yes Sir thank you thank you Mr of if of some who someone's coming in to have a concert or somebody else's leasing for special event and they do not wish to have farms and there are groups that we will not perform of without for if there's farms except for if the release in the area for the day that it basically becomes not public property so of that was no problem of for me and the solve the problem for them and of of. Because I take any questions on the amendment we have any questions on the amendment. What got em motion for the adoption second any other discussion all in favor the amendment say aye. Members adopted. Of I'm sure you remember the bill it just allows it it brings city parks up to the same law state parks and national parks but if you have a concealed Kerry license that you can carry of all in city parks and trails in most circumstances. I'm not. Be happy to take any questions gang questions you for an explanation of bill. Is there anybody here to speak for against the bill. You closing your bill Senator Clark I'm close of make a motion to pass a motion to pass a second Senator Ballenger any other discussion. All in favor say aye. Imposed as amended. Motion carried. Okay you got to no other bill there Senate bill one sixty six Senator Clark. I do. Of an amendment for US Senate bill one sixty six. Okay staff is handing out the amendment if you wanna go and explain to the member center car. Of we'll the relief basically I have to explain the bill to explain the amendment but. The Senate bill one sixty six. Of would have opened up our child welfare records to the public which many states have done and we've had we had testimony back in October from some Georgia judges Minnesota taxes among other states have done it in all have reported with great success. The Amendment is that the our judges were not in favor of that and had some concerns I had had some of the same concerns into we had visited with these judges and other states but again we want to take care of their concerns and what we did is this amendment keeps the courts the trouble for courts of basically at a status of closed but it does about eighty percent it It allows family fictive kin of coaches pastors but anybody connected to the case the judges in either of origin of the bill would still be allowed to close the the court room of. The. The type of salt needed and chose to do so. but The Amendment thanks for the judges are now in support of and like to does not open up the courts completely but it does of. Allow a lot of The very important people to be there are some the judges were actually already doing this which I was not actually within the law but the consistency the need to up to do it of and I appreciate that many of them push two of. To get others on board to support this amendment under the and therefore support the bill so I would appreciate your support amendment be glad to take any questions anyone have questions on the amendment. You don't have questions motion to adopt the amendment second any discussion all in favor say aye. Amendments adopted do you have anything to add to the bill's Senator Clark I basically presented the bill the click clack take any questions on the bill many questions from members on the bill anybody here to speak for against the bill. You closing your bill senator Clark I'm closer to make a motion to pass as amended got a motion do pass as amended Senate Clark's second by Senator Johnson any other discussion. All in favor say aye. Bill do pass as amended proof thank you committee thank you Mr. Senator Irvin has texted she was our waiver that's fifteen minutes ago and she still not here Senator Hendren of Senate bill two O. four looks like Europe. Okay so Senator Hendren Senate bill two O. four. my good to go you are recognized to present your bill senator thank you Mr chairman so this is a bill that It's a little bit like an interim study bill except that ask for a report to be filed and will give some authority if the committees decide is necessary to engage a consultant to do so and this is a bill I want to start by saying this not driven by. the belief that DCFS hasn't done a great job in making things better the last several years for kids in foster care the numbers are coming down significantly until the pandemic hit but now we're back up to almost forty seven hundred kids or over forty seven hundred kids in state foster care and having had some personal experience with the foster care system but not just here but other states the last few years it's become something that's become important to me so what this bill basically does is ask the children aging you to or the aging children youth and Legislative Military Affairs Committee on the house and Senate to do a study to look at best practices not just to here but in the other states you can see a list of all the things that it asked these committee to study and the goal is to provide a report prior to the end of next year with legislative recommendations so what can we do to take that number from forty seven hundred down to zero or have a waiting list or at least significantly reduce it how can we become the state's leader in finding homes for these kids and making the public aware of the need to what resources and as I've been talking with DCFS they've made some very important points about this is not just a DHS problem this this study will include the issues with regard to the mental health with regard to the judicial support for courts that have to remove these kids from foster care so what tools can the legislature provide to make life better for these forty seven hundred children that to have been entrusted to us so that's pretty much it to be happy to answer any questions. Questions from the committee. Seeing no questions from the committee to have anyone here to speak for against from the audience. Saying no one here to speak for against Senator Hendren would you like to close for your bill no appreciate a good vote now I move do pass the motion to pass second from Senator Rice any discussion all for the motion signify by saying aye. All against. Education center interview pastor bill thank you Mr chairman members committed. Senator Irvin. Yes the two fifty six. Thank you members of the committee on Senator Missy Irvin district eighteen today I'm here with the Arkansas state police and and this is a bill that they brought to me I think it's incredibly important a piece of legislation and I'll tell you. Why we unfortunately had a young lady that was That was. That was kidnapped and the ability to utilize Fiber and fiber technology is how we found her. She was a victim of human trafficking and it was just a remarkable story it was very difficult for our our area and just and and I'm unimaginable what this young lady went through but the real heroes I think behind the scene I mean everybody was a hero in this instance the law enforcement community and the entire region the all of the law enforcement in the state of Arkansas were ROIC that I will just tell you the behind the scenes heroes were those folks that were on the computers that we're trying to find this young lady and the way that they found her was because she had a kindle or a device like that and she turned it on it It paint and that's how we found her and rescued her and saved her. And so this is this is I'm gonna turn it over and let my expert talk to you about the specifics of the bill but I'm very passionate about us being able to utilize all of our cyber technology and to help to help are victims. Good morning I'm captain. Good morning I'm captain Stacey rates with the Arkansas state police assigned to the special operations which oversees the internet crimes against children task force and if you're not familiar with our task force and it's it's a. Federally funded grant program throughout the state we have a week we have that Philly it's throughout the state of things that we right now we have seventy affiliates would switch our our local police departments and sheriff's departments and and we generally how we work these cases so a cyber tip comes in from the national center for missing and exploited children. When we get that cyber tip we basically only have an IP address and if you're from I won't get it in real technical terms but generally we have an I. P. address and the only thing right now that we can get from that I. P. address is a general location and. The I. P. address as it stands now we have to call a local prosecutor or we have to get a search warrant from a local judge just to be able to find out who that I. P. address returns to you with this administrative subpoena power what that will do all kind of cut through some of that time and as you know as as Senator Irvin said your time is a real big issue especially in the case with with the objective child that she's referring to this would cut down on so much of our time because we couldn't we could initiate the subpoena out right from the state police send it to the internet service provider and get that information and all we're getting is just basic information are not getting content we're just getting name you know the address of where they live it's it's kind of the equivalent of of getting online that the county assessor's website and putting in a person find out who lives there that's all it is it's we're not getting content we're not getting and you know any personal information other than who it is and where they live so that we can establish jurisdiction because jurisdiction is really important when you're working these cases I could tell you I can't tell you how many times that we will get an I. P. address get a general location go through all of this work for the jurisdiction to be in a completely different areas and sometimes across state lines like we'll get something in Marion and come to find out it's all the way over in Tennessee which is just across the river but and and so that would really cut down on how much time that we have to get to these kids. I think there and just Across the United States I think we have roughly twenty other states that have this administrative power in the and the subpoena is only for. Internet crimes against minors that's the only thing that it will be used for. Are you all ready for questions Senator Johnson. So any further information would require a warrant that's correct Sir. This is not taking the place of a warrant is just giving you a general location where where to look yes where to start where to kick off our jurisdiction it'll give us the name of the person that the I. P. address resolve to and from there it's up to our investigation to move us forward with the search warrant to go to the home and you know and and do all that stuff so in the in the case that I was referring to I believe if I'm not correct there were about three or four different locations and different states where that this could have been so they had to basically re re act at the same time and different state locations not knowing which one was the right one and you can imagine the resources that it took to try to pull that off but they had to you because they didn't know if that child was in I think Texas Pennsylvania Missouri Missouri or Arkansas. And so you can imagine you know it but it was a very well coordinated and executed plan and they were just hoping and praying that one of those locations is the right one but they didn't know but they had to establish that ability in each of those locations and do it at the same time because if you know because in human trafficking that individual can be kidnapped and moved so fast and I will not go into detail about what happens to this young girl but within a matter of twenty four to forty eight hours the things that were done to her or an believable they were horrendous and. It was a matter of hours before she was sold and it was a matter of hours that we had in order to rescue her. All the. Senator Johnson so. Did you did you have to go a warrant to get the. The location on ended that the location and come and all those different state. Yes in the the FBI actually got involved the kind of help us coordinate some of the out of state and information you know. A lot of people end up getting involved in in in situations that that that she described not all of them are like that a lot of or unit in the files and perverts are no longer enter city parks there on our internet you know just last week we had a gentleman up in Mountain Home two little did he know he was communicating with an undercover Missouri state trooper pretending to be a fourteen year old boy on the internet they set up this meeting he showed up and he was he was arrested this is a daily occurrence across the United States last year and in Arkansas we had over twenty five hundred cyber tips and these are tips that come in from Facebook and Snapchat and all of the social media they also come in from the public people wanting to report you know their their fourteen year old daughter being stopped by some million that they don't know these are all twenty five hundred and what this what this bill would help us do is and I I know that that Mr shoes in here and he's a prosecutor because right now we would have to call him and someone in his office would have to help us get that if we had it we could do it and we can have the information by the end of the end of the day. A lot of our prosecutors already have a whole lot to do especially in the in the major areas here in Little Rock Fort Smith some of that can kind of get lost in the in the mix so to speak and if we had it it it's right there at our fingertips and and trust me with the Arkansas state police your personal privacy is is you know. The fourth amendment we believe in it And so but this is just something that can help us get to our kids before their these predators get their hands on them. Thank you for your. Other questions from the committee. The way I read this. That work it creates but requires a subpoena. Yes which means there will be a written document. That describes in detail. What what we're going after and while we're going after it for the route for the permanent record that's correct okay so they will open up the door for some rolled state police officer to. Checkup P. addresses that's correct there's going to be dead you know it's the Director issue Sam or his designate and I can assure you there's only going to be one door there's only gonna be one gate that those are coming out at it's going to be heavily heavily monitored. Okay any other questions. Senator Ballinger. Thank you very much and I I appreciate that what you're doing here and and and the bill the one thing that if the I'm I'm struggling with a little bit is why I think this is a it's a good useful tool and and I hope that it would be would be upheld. But how is this how does that mesh with the Fourth Amendment when I mean it you know you you say here that there are specific things that are more identifying markings right to the those are usually easier under Fourth Amendment to acquire name and address and so forth rather than getting into personal facts but it but the inspection see on page two. You know if this these more identifying tag markings which fairly extensive then also says including without limitation you know basically anything that's relevant to the investigation I would just be a little bit concerned that it has this specific legislation been been challenged in the in the courts in this bill has been upheld I cannot answer that but I don't know that there's been and a court up hell decision on it no Sir yeah and I think that the I think the best way to avoid that is is to keep the philosophy of realizing that this is something that should be used very limited when mentally and an order and only in those emergency circumstances because if we did start pulling evidence through this then you're going to find that you're gonna have some cases overturned I believe so absolutely and I think that you'll find a lot of our at like Facebook you know a lot of these companies won't give us that without a search warrant you and you know just hands down right to it which I understand I thank you you're welcome. Other questions from the committee. Say none of those or anyone from the audience to speak for against. See non center when would you like to close for your bill. Yes I do appreciate the questions you are a very and forms committee and and you do your work can I I really do appreciate that because I think it's very important to have those discussions like what Senator Ballinger product and we you know we and the Arkansas state police in the crimes against children they don't want to do anything to jeopardize that case and so that they that they do realize that time is just so critical when it comes to. These these heartbreaking cases heartbreaking cases and at and this is becoming so much more prevalent in our society and it's it's alarming but it's something that we have to give them the tools to be able to save those kids before they get completely lost so I would appreciate a good vote. Motion to pass from Senator Ballinger second from Senator Ross of any discussion hearing none offer the motions in a publicized I. All against motion carried congratulations interview pastor bill thank you members. Senator Hammer are you still here. Senate bill. For seventeen. Okay of. We're gonna go to Senate bill four seventy six Senator Tucker. Thank you Mr chair this is a bill just to provide a little relief to people who suffered as a result of the pandemic specifically for tenants who were addicted and the the reason for their fiction was non payment of rent because of the financial hardship due to the pandemic and so this bill is not to debate whether they should or should not have been evicted what it does is if you were evicted and the court finds that the reason you were evicted is because of financial hardship as a result of COVID nineteen. Then you could have your records your eviction record sealed so that that particular eviction is not held against you in future leasing situations or or in any other situation so that's the idea. In but. Eviction has to taking place after March. First I believe of twenty twenty. There were three thousand additions during that time frame last year in the court can access to most core connect us most District Court cases are not in Cork next so we know that there were more fiction cases in just the the thirty four hundred number that are in court connect there about three hundred and twenty I believe who listed the reason for their addiction is not payment as a result of financial hardship from the pandemic and that would just allow those tenants if the court finds and finds that they were evicted because of financial hardship because of the pandemic to seal their record and that's it so they're not that's not held against them in the future similar thought process you know to the bill we already passed I supported that. Your employer And unemployment claims are made and that's it as a result of a national emergency then that's not held against your rating it's it's a similar thought process to that I did reach out to the realtors before I filed this bill and obviously some copy after I filed and they took a vote on it in the Arkansas realtors says association supports the supports the bill for what that's worth also that's the gist of it it's it's a very short bill just to provide a little relief and be glad to take any questions. SunTrust. Thank you Mister senator Clark in a I'm not against this and understand a lot of people have been. harmed during the pandemic of no choice of their own. thought about is looked over this the. Single female. that had a rental in my area it It contacted me. Of the. Male who rented from order deals using inch small realtor. Sales. But she had a little. Rental and this was when there was a. May I know. Spogli eviction from those with federal funding right this was not that in she had somebody. That had money get they get the money ever remote still getting it. But said they were going to pay her. It was going to stay there to the end of the year in move out get a new place. And Labor holding the bag I got or in contact with somebody turned in general office. In fairness she had somebody that I thank we just. Trying to the pushover right is there any any one. Again many legitimate things what what's the potential you're for this being misused. It's a fair question and I really don't think this bill would apply to that situation because this bill only applies post conviction. and it sounds like in your situation and correct me if I misunderstood you senator but there was. some provision preventing the infection from taking place it's seat sealing a record. And and again This somebody's been evicted in you seal the record into the invitation is justifiable. Is in this person that should have been evicted. had had a much income that had not been changed by the president pandemic but decided they were going to use the pandemic to to not pay if that record was say of that person was a victim in that record seal he he could go do it to the next implant devil's advocate a little bit here I understand that there to somebody with the some K. and I'll get you do anything about well I think if the of if the sealing of the record was automatic I think your concern would be more applicable to the bill but the in the bill the court has to find that the objection was caused by the pandemic. And I really full frankly think that's the way it has to be in order not to violate the separation of powers if we just started telling courts what they whether they had or had to steal something or not seal something. My concern would be that that would infringe on the separation of powers and in the court's ability to find that but in your case you know I think the landlord would come and say we know that this person's income did not change as a result of the pandemic and and they would be able to make their case to the court in that regard and so that the judge would have to make that finding in in a again some. That's more time there for and and again I got produce would weigh in you protect those you can and someone misuse assist right that's that's fair thank you Mr. Senator Hendren. Thank you Mr chairman Yasser Tucker I appreciate the bill and I think it's it's good policy I just have a question because I don't understand how sealing works is so what does that do did does that prevent like credit bureaus from accessing that when they do a credit rating review. That's right that's the idea so what if that you're filling out loan applications or whatever what's a person's obligation when they've had that record seal today have to disclose that or or does it have any impact on that. My understanding and Senator Ballinger if you want to help me here police judgment understanding is once a record has been sealed in most cases in it And many cases what that means is that it's as if that didn't from a legal standpoint that it didn't exist and so they wouldn't be obligated to disclose that in the future it's my understanding of how it works thank you. Senator Johnson. Senator Graham I'm a little bit late I missed part of the discussion I apologize for that so in those federal executive orders where the suspension Reno was put in place that didn't suspends arena and at the end of this it's due. No matter what you know COVID related or whatever so could you address that or did I miss that because I mean it's it's it is still do yeah this bill has no effect on what rent is due nor does it have any effect on whether a person can be injected or should be evicted it's just. If they're evicted for nonpayment of rent and a court finds that the non payment of rent was caused by financial hardship resulting from a pandemic in that election record can be sealed but it has no effect on the payment of rent or on the ability to evicted tenant. Thank you. Senator Ballinger. Thank you Mr how do we handle judgments so if if you had a situation where a person and and this is pretty typical usually what happens is they get out you have a default with the with the Division specially for the person that. Time of the professional tenant which happens sometimes so now you have a a judgment against them how do you handle that it can that can that be you know can you go and execute the judgment can that go on you know can you record it so the taxes to any other property they own that type stuff. That's a good question and a comment on sort of you know speculating in my answer a little bit but I that judgment would be handled by the same court that would do this the sealing of the record so my it and tell me if you have a different thoughts senator but my my thought but initial reaction is the court would have to take that into account. When the whatever they're doing the ceiling or executing on the judgment. If the same judge would be. Providing the same orders are not the same orders but in the same case. It well it could be unless you're taking that the judge when you're trying to execute another jurisdiction of course it would be but the question is would you be allowed to do that I mean that you know what if if we know that that that this person has family in the area they're likely to to inherit a piece of property required you know I'll recommend just take the judgment recorded in the real estate records as a lien against the property potential down the road if I I just you know I think that if it is sealed if it's going to be effective then you're not gonna be able to do that I would say anything else with the rights I think that you are basically by selling the record you probably cutting the judgment off or into it may be that they don't sell the record because of that or or if they do decide civil record I just don't know that there's a method to collect if there's an out of. Right and so yes I understand your point if you take a judgment somewhere else you know other than that it'll be a different judge I understand that I guess my thought was. All right again real it relying on the corseted a judge would be unlikely to seal the record if the judgment that the judgment was outstanding. But that's not in the bill admittedly yeah but I don't I mean it most of the action cases hi if the if the person is addicted I have yet to do and I don't have done that many will say ten or fifteen maybe total but in the end those ten fifteen cases I would say almost to a one there was a there was a judgment owed at the end of it. Which I would also say that I would be surprised if the judgment was collected even onto of right but the the question is. Your do you did I mean I I think that by doing this we're we are saying that you know it's a choice between ceiling at or having an outstanding judgment that you can you can execute on that I mean I would the only thing I was. I would say I I appreciate what you're trying to do and I think that that's I think that there is value to it I don't know that I would want to make that decision to cut off the bility to get a judgment. Here. I understand that. I respect that and I just got it I mean I don't know I think a lot of cases those judgments probably or not collected on but that's not for up to us to sign in. Other questions from the committee. I'm sorry Senator Johnson. Senator Tucker the moral hone in on one word I don't know if that's been honed in on the okay. Adversely affected or impacted adversely impact. That's not defined you know is that economic impact is that a health your name was it was in the hospital for two months then I can I can make that understanding that without that being defined the that's a lot of loose ends. For a judge or or or any other person to make that judgment on and and and you're asking for emergency procedure in this also so. You. So what if I what what if I define that language and then. Senator Ballinger I'll try to put some language in there to address your concerns get it amended and bring it back out as that sounds yeah that's it I think it's not going to be and that's a really easy task but but I think we at least need to decide whether or not we're going to from policy standpoint decided come all offering it in the other thing that I would say that if we're amending it is maybe also put a put a time frame as to when it when it terminates it doesn't have that in. The non bongo and so the question is may we really could be making a pretty shocking change to two Arkansas law if what we're doing is you know starting March first it's every because I depend on what the judges and how they how they find it obsoleted appeal these but the but we usually what we're talking about such a small amount of money that it implements a set aside I have a a friend from church so the lady has a house in Fayetteville that she has a tenant who is just absolutely abusing her you know that he's on the other side of the of the of the the duplex she relies upon that money to to be able to to live off from and she has other income but it's not enough and that it has been in there for for eight months but the reality is it's not easy especially fable to think somebody so and and she doesn't have the money to pay for the eviction process and so she's in kind of a tough catch twenty two it I I would like for her when she when she does get the guy out to be able to have that judgment that if nothing else you can follow the guy until he does have something or at least you know the guy can you know there's that that remote possibility but he will absolutely claim and I know you will because actually a few of those months got paid by virtue of of the of the really thing that we provide for tenants he'll claim that it was he was affected by code and that I would not be surprised court would make that finding twenty easy to be affected by it so anyway let's we'll talk about and we'll see what we can do but I I don't I don't disagree with what trying to do okay. I appreciate it thank you Mr chair of still have a couple more questions pressed his please Senator Stubblefield. Thank you Mr this might be this is a language questions Senator Tucker can you have multiple cases of your records being sealed. Yes I pertain to the same criteria. Yes in this bill. So you could have ten conceivably when to Senator Ballinger is point we are talking about a limited time frame it doesn't start until March first of twenty twenty there is no end date in the bill however it is limited by the covered nineteen pandemic hopefully there's you know it's us some point in the future when that's not. gonna be affecting people anymore plates in the near future but you know what's this call of the summer there's about a fifteen month period where you might be affected by it so conceivably you could have ten of actions but that would be that would be real tough you know over a fifteen month period. But. If we had a flare up two years from now. And someone was in the same situation. They could have the records sealed. Two years from now. The way that met the criteria this bill yes Sir okay that thank you it's just the you know the idea is if it's outside of their control is kind of the idea yes Sir. The Senator Tucker of my first questions will has anyone contacted you with this concern. No Sir okay I've had conversations about it. With with I have not had a tenant reach out to me no Sir but I know people are affected by it and I read some of the cases of of people who have been affected by it so I know I mean I know without reading this it's affected people but I have read some of the cases where. Four you know addicted for non payment because of the pandemic in our I read about those but I haven't had a tenant reach out to me. So mmhm my first question is similar Senator Stubblefield. Basically asked it but the bill's not limited to one objection but my question is should it be because I think the philosophy is very sound of and I find that tenants or own two camps those who always pay. And those who are problems of and those who always pay and have a problem. Because a covert. Then this is extremely good bill of if this allows people who are always a problem. Of. Two. Of have the records sealed that's not a good thing because landlords need to be able to know. What somebody's record is and so sealing one bad. Case because it wasn't your fault. I don't think anybody's got a problem with but should there not be a limit. To the number that should be sealed if we're going to do it of. The regardless of what the reasons may be of. Does that make sense yes Sir I understand in and to use your language I totally respect that against the thoughts that jumped out at me. Upon hearing you say that are you know if someone is a has a long record of objections before COVID nineteen you know we're not sealing any of those records so that that history whilst will still exist. How could you see a scenario and I'll visit with you further about and and think about it but again to use your language where someone who always pays gets hit and hurt by the pandemic. and they don't pay but I could see that person if they get get evicted. being in that situation more than once given the fact that this has lasted over a year. And again we're talking about someone with a good record who always pays I could see it happening to them more than once so maybe there's a balance in there somewhere and but I'll I'll continue to think about it in and visit with you further about it Mister chairman but I understand your point but yeah but I think a limit I don't think it's ten right I don't think it's much over one next one of those does it affect the land the ceiling effect landlord and that may be something you just need somebody to. Be able to answer for us. is the landlord it in any way restricted from revealing the eviction. Well when the record sale because I mean the it's still as far as the courts are concerned. But it if of. There's not anything in the bill that there's not anything in the bill that would preclude a landlord from speaking about what happened I mean the court conceivably could issue a ruling like a gag order but I I think that's far fetched to I don't I don't think there's anything that's an area where a landlord to be prohibited from talking about a lot of us are not attorneys I'm just discern what items to ceiling I'm asking this does not affect the landlord that's right because of somebody if contact the landlord a landlord would say. This person didn't pay and had to be affected that's right. Of. And. The other problem is that it is open ended. Of the order Kerr's appears to me this problem because it doesn't start to March two thousand twenty. But can you not see somebody five years down the road. After the Pandemis over because it Ali thank reading for extra clean I find that many judges read things very strictly and will I can't pay now because of. What happened. Back then. Yes can you envision that happening I could. Yes Sir I understand that and I'll I'll think about that too admissible Senator Ballinger about it. You know my thought is again we have the judges will be issuing these orders and I think a judge would be much more likely to to be sympathetic to that argument in March of twenty twenty one then they would be in March of twenty twenty six we would hope so right but it still says she's of. Those are not shall sealed for record. And if the tenants being adversely impacted by the crown of ours. Who the Right like them and I don't think that your intent. It's not my my concern is we just don't know where this thing is going on I hope it's winding down but Senator Stubblefield said we could have another flare up in the future and so I just you know I don't know what the future holds. To a you know maybe we could put something in there relating to the declaration of an emergency or the removal of that declaration or something like that our. Past the time of an emergency right exactly in these things always get more complicated than you think they will be right I would be hesitant to put a hard stop date in there you know without knowing what the future holds but if we could maybe tied to something perhaps we can work through that. Any other questions from committee. My understanding is you wish for your bill down today Senator Tucker yes Mr okay of then The without objection from the Committee no objection okay of you're free to bring it back to us thank you very much Mister and I sincerely appreciate your question thank you. Senator Hammer. This before seventeen. And there is an amendment. Where you're recognized to present your bill thank for sure would you like me speak to the amendment first sure okay so after the last presentation department corrections came to me and identified what they felt was an issue I'm grateful to amend a bill it just simply says that for those that have been convicted of these four things listed that they will have had to complete their of their parole or probation before they can get the licensure and some the reason behind that is of an officer stop somebody that had the weapon as would be allowed under the law but they were still under probation it would create some confusion on behalf of the officer so this is just establishing that once they complete that then they would be eligible to get there to get their permit to get their weapon. Any questions on the amendment. The motion to pass from Senator Ross. Our motion to adopt the amendment the amendment SunTrust second from center Johnson any discussion all four of the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed most the amendment is adopted Senator Hammer you're recognized for that your bill thank you sure don't want to belabor the point long because I think addressed it last time but they're not actually but they what this bill does is I'm bringing on behalf of one of my constituents who was actually convicted of an antitrust violation according to state law that would prohibit him from being able to get his concealed weapon and so we went and matched against what the federal law allows did run this by a C. I. see and they rounded up the up the line through the FBI just to make sure there weren't any pitfalls that might occur and there were not any so this aligns with what the federal law allows for persons been convicted the anti trust violation unfair trade practice restraint of trade or another offense related to regulation of business practices so these are all nine for non violent offenses and what it would do is just aligned with what the federal law allows so that a person could get there a concealed weapon permit and we are amending in that would be upon completion of the the requirements of their of their sentence at which time they would be able to get it and that's the long and short of the bill. Questions from the committee. Three hundred. So is the federal law that says it has to be some has a one year sentence is that right. Yes it we aligned it with what the federal law said so that we would match which in the state I guess I the reason I ask that is I've had some folks come to me who had convictions twenty five years ago of trespassing or your writing in a vehicle or something like that and they were on probation to do any jail time but now they can't go hunting does this have any effect on that. I don't know that. That particular illustration would fit under the definition one of these for this is kind of a bite at the apple I don't I don't know that it would or not center hindered. I would have I would be opposed if it did operate that way I just don't know that it does okay thanks welcome. Other questions from the committee. Seeing none is there anyone here from the audience to speak for against. See non Senator Hammer would your clothes your bill I just appreciate a good vote the as I mentioned these are non violent offenders and I would just appreciate a good vote. The Committee. Do pass from Senator Ballinger of. So I could as amended second from center Johnson. any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed congradulations Senator Hammer you have passed your bill as amended thank you Mr members of the committee. Senator Rice served the representative SP four sixty four. Mr secretary rice presenting SP four six four. this is not a. Bill that I had ever thought. Would be needed to run. first off this is not a prosecutor so shuzhen bill that came late and was not part of their package but I want to thank them for their help in They put this together in the background This came about is a need from a police department detective in my district. That. I had concerns about the lacking of sentencing discretion. The thirty or so euros alkyl. Required his five year old niece. To go in the bedroom with the more he directed her remove all our clothing and he did the same. While he supposedly did not. Tucker he violated her that can leave a lifetime of problem. Now while it was a prosecutable offense. It was found that the law only allowed a Class D. felony. Two examples of a Class D. felony are breaking and entering a building structure or vehicle. Also criminal mischief in the first degree is destroying or damaging of any property of another one. One that we just. Past the today it only lacks the full vote of the Senate. Is someone stealing packages. Will be a Class D. felony. One of my goes in with the goals I have served on Judiciary. For ten of the twelve years that I've been in the legislature. In one of the goals that I have greatly appreciated at this committees protecting children. While this does not limited just to children. this says. That. It It I had the definition of sexual contact urinating defecating or Jack Ladyman owner of the other person for the purpose of sexual gratification. Increases the penalty to a class B. felony. And that penalty is not less than five years no more than twenty years and a maximum of fifteen thousand dollar. Fine. I would welcome any questions. That possibly can ensure not the prosecutors K.. Questions from the committee. Seeing none do we have any one here to speak for or against the bill. Seeing none SunTrust with your clothes your bill I'll close the bill I would make a motion to pass pressure to get the. Motion to pass such a rise second from Senator Stubblefield any discussion hearing none all for the. Motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations Senator Russia pastor Bill thank you Mister Committee. Senator Hendren we're back to you Senate bill two eighteen. Thank you Mr chairman members of the committee. Okay make your way to the state police bill if you have questions about it but it's pretty straightforward as you all know we continue to pass requirements for background checks in fact I just ran a bill on the floor not couple days ago about adult workers for foster care facilities. So that's continuing to put a load on the state police so the new technology now live scan technology that they're utilizing and have all over the state is much faster much less labor intensive faster for the recipient and this is a it is going to basically required that those those background checks be submitted using that technology and again it's a small machine that you put your fingerprint finger on it interfaces and makes it much faster and lets the State Police be free to do the stuff that's a little bit more important than. Chasin aces background check paperwork pieces around so it's a bill for efficiency for the state police I don't know of any opposition but if you have some questions about it major Lindsey Williams is here to help us with that. Questions from the committee. I have a couple questions if there's someone here. You'll recognize yourself record. Yes Sir Mr chairman I'm Lindsey Williams I'm a major with Arkansas state police and I'm responsible for the regulatory division. Of. all. Can I ask for of criminal background checks from the state police. Well there's a large number of people who to who can ask and receive background checks those are set forth by statutes that are that are individually crafted for various agencies such as department Human Services department education pharmacy board medical board over just a few a few examples of those but the the allowance for those are set out in state you. And how would they do this electronically okay what what would happen in and this also allowed to stay at the while this is a big benefit for us in terms of efficiency this should be a tremendous benefit to the public into those seeking background because of the the efficiency of Lasky and so instead of going to like you might have in the past to the sheriff's department or police department in having your prints taken by ink on a card ending you sending that in these are taking all taken on a live scan machine that machine has the ability to determine whether that grant is of a good quality Raskin and so when you have somebody that's a trained operator that you're almost guaranteed of an acceptable print right now we have a lot of the prints that are rejected because of poor quality in the taking of those in France and then that causes a delay for the applicant is seeking a background check in may be seeking a license to operate a day care facility or or the a nurse or a pharmacist or anything like that. And at the centre Johnson you go in. So I had a daughter in law had two in Little Rock to do this. Would that help alleviate that. I mean there for nursing and it was for a nursing last. It is it should because they're Lasky and set for example the department of education in Barton Human Services and education Cooper and state they already have lab Skeens in ninety they utilize those to a large degree department Human Services has recently started requiring many of their applicants for background checks to use last Kenyans question department Human Services is so large see if so means the agents in a they have multiple background checks not all of them are in the mandatory Lasky and use yet but those should that should help and those are scattered around the state in in there also people known as harvesters who have companies that that's what they do they have a live scan to fasten it you know with if there's a group of people in Northwest Arkansas that don't have access to the lab skin they would travel to that area and in for a for a nominal fee and then nominals a little bit of a vague term but that set by the by the private entities the the harvesters they would take those fingerprints in the and they could submit those directly to us electronically so it cuts down tremendously on time. So so there wouldn't be a a law enforcement agency that has live scan the that the individuals in the community go to would have to be DHS no there there could be that the potential is there for that however the last scans that are at law enforcement agencies now are only set up to submit criminal prints when someone is arrested so those would have to be reprogrammed and that would require the the approval of a share for a police chief whoever's in charge of that and the problem that you Matt ran into with some of those he is many some of those are in the booking area is in those administrators might be a little bit reluctant to take a a a nurse applicant or a teacher applicant back into those areas. Well what about the state police headquarters regionally I mean the that would be a good place to help alleviate the the can you know the people's travel around the state and our constituents. Correct well the yes I I would totally disagree with that where we currently don't have the ability to do that because we don't have live scan machines at those head quarters and then we would we would need to designate personnel to to do that and because it's not something that that a teacher could come in and just do their own and then leave and we would have to sure someone is there so that there would be some complications not necessarily of the question but but there would be some some things to consider on that and there are like say that the education co op scared around the state the H. yes I think they have about fifty some odd machines recently purchased so there's there's a number of machines out there already in in fairly strategic locations. The I would I would just like to see it you know look more widely in the in your enforcement special those those headquarters and make that available the you know and be a good. You know place to do it outside of just come in Little Rock so thank you for this bill Senator Hendren. Senator Ballinger. Thank you Mr so I think that I think most of this kind of got covered with that that conversation but you know I I had I recently got my reinstate my real estate license in order to do that I had to go through the background skate background check but you know living in and nor Johnson County typically what you would do is you go down to the police out police station and they'd they do your fingerprints now because of the fact that if they used use code which included a reason to to do that so the only thing the only way that you do it is to the light skin like Senator Johnson's daughter but you know if if you live in rural Arkansas either really are not very many places there's one northwest Arkansas I think there's one Fort Smith there is couple in in Little Rock area. There's not very many places you can go where before if you're gonna get your real estate license you go down right down to the police station and to your fingerprints I I still think this is probably it's probably better to move that direction but my concern is as it is right now if you are not in a metropolitan area it means that your rather than just get your fingerprint done at the local police station or whatever else does that you have to actually travel now to do it. Depending you're correct depending on the type of background investigation you're you're after that The New with if it's one As required by department Human Services there's there's a lot of areas or a lot of offices that they have scattered around but for the last since it's a little more specific or limited like you describe for real estate then it might be just a little more difficult what I would say that's probably just reverse rights of that specific so that for DHS the agents allow you to use it but if it's not for DHS's fits for you know any kind of license that requires background check you're going to have to go to is one of those places that are open to the public in and so I I mean I I think you will yes this legislation will probably make it where there will be more incentive to to provide more of these places but I think that we should really consider getting them a little more spread out around the state because you know. You for me moving come to little rock when the big deal I'm I make a concert with the meeting that I have here for a lot of folks that means taking a day off from work in order to be able to get here to get or or any place from from Johnson County is going to be making a trip to do it yes Sir and if that is of the year is a valid point it is the the other question if I if I may is regard to section one of this would you mind going over what what you're actually changing here we have that first in I thought it was it was just clean up but it's really not you're actually making a modification of what is actually pulled up in their correct. The yes yes Sir that is the the the the big part of this bill was the requirement for the Laskin use but there is a change in what is reported on a a background in and I own them Page two currently is three years for a an open felony that didn't have a disposition now we've asked for that to be moved to five years and what we've discovered is that sometimes particularly with the more serious felony charges. They're not always resolved within that within a three year paid and so we're just expanding that window from asking at that be expanded from three years to five years and without a couple of situations specific situations where it fell under the three year window we returned to the results to a an agency and I believe it was the H. yes to be honest and they happen to have some personal knowledge or somebody there was for me here with the the individual who is the subject of the background and the they started saying how he that we know this person was that was involved in a in this particular crime so we need to ask for that to be expanded from three to five not not to change the criteria that is force which reported but just the time frame okay so with that in section one it goes from enrolled one year at least five years is that to make it. Consistent. And I'm not sure where the three year period is sorry that was on the it was on the back pages that means may reduce. On honestly Senator I would need to go back and look at that the that one year on that thank you. Other questions from the committee. The piece that seems to be missing to me because the same two I liked the part where makes of this more efficient for the state police is the consumer piece of. You senator Ross Perot we're gonna do something like this. We have to also be sure is firmly to the consumer. and that that it's easy for them to use and it's okay if we don't because then they can go to our competitor of and ignore us but in this case. They can't ignore the supplier of because this is of state of mark's house where they have to have it done. And it looks like. And it looks like the very people can be the least friendly to or the people who are targeted because DHS going to anyway department of education's going to it anyway. So do we have we not given any thought to these people that are going to have a. Hard time accessing the system. Well we have we have I thank the bulk of the background checks that we're that we're running are going to be those that are for those large entity such as BHS department The Ed medical board placed back agencies like that that have multiple opportunities for for Alaskan use around around the state there are a lot the Senator mentioned about the a real estate license maybe there might be little fewer locations for those but we felt like that that there are still a number of places that those could be found and that the number will expand a is is this requirement is imposed in it also the the value in having a plant that is much less likely to be rejected in a background check go through in a more timely fashion you know cannot offset a little bit more of the tab it might take two to travel the county or two away to the pain the background I don't know if any two questions Senator Clark or not will it does but it seems like we could have a bill that requires DHS and all these larger ones if they weren't gonna do it voluntarily which it sounds like they are of but we could have a bill that required them to do it that didn't create a hardship on others or we could also again it's. But also possible when we things like this are introduced to go out and The look for partners to of the instead of hoping that somebody's going to come in to meet the demand of because otherwise the consumer that has to do this by law is then left with the hardship but we made it easy for us but we made it hard for them you can see that. We can a court right now it's there's there's difficulty in people finding places to get fingerprinted because the the pandemic because hopefully pandemic goes way that so it's is not much different in what situation they're in right now the. Well I would rather this was more fully developed for the. Consumers less taxpayer but. Right I make a comment sir center and because I I had the same concern and I've got a lot of material here that I can provide to members which shows the locations of where these lights can units are available now. And I was really kind of surprised no one of the things I don't know and I'm I as the major to comment on this is for instance and Benton counties I. see to asylum springs schools got one that the grammar schools of got one there's one there's two others in Benton County the. Sheriff's office been county sheriff's office and the Rogers police department so I guess my question is would any of those four locations be available for any background check or they just doing those internally. Thank you primarily they're doing those internally and for the for the subjects of the of the background it's directly related to their facility however the possibility is definitely there two for agencies to work together to to form some cooperative agreements to to do background checks for others we would just have to reprogram some machines and and you know I'm hesitant to to to speak on behalf of any other state agency to to commit them to for example say in the AGS would do a background check for a for an applicant for a real estate license but that possibility is there in those machines can be programmed to accept any any cap background background check in submitting tax background check. I guess the other information I think would be good for the committee members to know and that that is part of the reason that to I have some of the same concerns about the areas that don't have as much access to the live scan machine or if they're trying to get a license and well we only do our school employees are we only do DHS background checks. If we're going to make this requirement how do we. Make it more available. And I guess what I would like to know from. Major Williams here is. Someone in these rural counties are they going to have less availability or more availability with vice Ganda versus waiting for fingerprints now. In a manual way that they have to do that they do it now in other words if they're told you have to go to a live scan machine are there going to be more people driving the Little Rock or less. Well I think there's I think there's going to be probably less people driving the Little Rock because right now if someone to France are rejected let's use the example of somebody who has prince Payton by any and then they send them to us and so there's already that delay because that manual process we get on the sentence of death be added there rejected then we've lost days right there in the and that person is likely to have dropped Little Rock in in this case we're gonna find out almost immediately with those grants even before their transmitted where they're acceptable or or not and these these harvesters thereafter that is a really a growing industry we seen it expand over the the peered of the pandemic considerably so there's a lot of availability for people to to obtain those plants in different locations in most of those harvesters will travel to someone now for travel in there for for to take one person's Brandt their their fee Matt be a little bit higher than it would be if they were traveling thank France of of twenty of twenty people there but we would also be be very willing to be to work with the laws meant to agencies around the state that have Lasky and right now to to see what we can do to to facilitate or even encourage them to to take civil fingerprints and and submit those would be happy to do that so it's being more availability. I think that's the part of the plan that's missing that I that I think without the encouragement or the the partnership. is a problem and I think if we had that partnership in place I think you're right if on the front end of. We had that agreement they were asked to do it we had that agreement I think then you've got a piece that Arkansas Paul deficiency but the. The. The service to the people of for those that it's a hardship is a problem I'll allow for this to I'll be happy to to to take back in lotus explore the the feasibility of of choir and Lasky and at our our tree paid quarters to see in that that the it was suggested we can we can certainly explore that as well media I and I think that's good let me ask the bill the bill down and see I don't know what is going to take an amendment or I can just get an agreement from the state police that they will have this available to everyone of their troop headquarters I think that's far better than most of us have today so we are taking care of the consumer peace and also the of efficiency be so let me see if they're willing to do that and if they are then I'll just bring it back next time because of without objection. It'll be fun Senator. Of SP three oh seven yeah if I could Mr chairman I'm I'm gonna pull that bill down but I'd like to make a couple comments on it because I would like some input from committee members because would like to bring it back next time as well there's this is the bill about fleeing there's been a tremendous increase in the number of accidents and people injured because of people deciding they're going to try to flee when from the state police when they try to pull him over. So this would this bill would increase the penalty for that and will have small again one of the numbers and all that next week but one of the things that has been brought to our attention that we want to make sure we. Don't cause another problem is. somebody to a loan on a. Road somewhere and wants to go to a safe place to pull over does it get a felony conviction for fully so we're gonna put some additional protections in there and we're looking at how that language is going to be but what I'd ask you guys because if there's a balance and I think everybody knows I don't think we have many police officers to don't know the difference but clearly there's a difference between somebody going a hundred fifty miles an hour and endangering a lot of people's lives in law enforcement lies and no kidding fleeing and putting the public at risk versus somebody who is afraid because it's an unmarked car with a blue light they want to go somewhere to a public area how do we make sure that that law does not encompass both of those back up because of a somebody who doesn't use the right kind of judgment so we're gonna find that language between now and Wednesday and try to get it out here so if you have some suggestions or you have some other concerns on that bill please talk to me or to the major Williams other not a couple of them for now. Senator John Senator Hendren. The the that racing on on public streets is stuck down there what I heard in the House Committee and that's a secondary you know that's on the secondary offense and and now because they got hung up on the difference in the derby I and and that and it and it in there is dangers in the and that so for sure I mean and so. No I I really meant for the same thing is that they're having issues down there with the bill that we passed pretty overwhelming here with guard to racing and and what I'm trying to just make sure that we don't senate bill down there on fleeing that has other issues that they begin to tear apart so I just wanna make sure that we get it right so I ask again specially lawyers look at it and if there's some things that concern you about it I do want to get the bill because obviously we've got people getting hurt not show some videos of absolutely insane people doing crazy things with cars putting a lot of people arrest so that needs to be taken care of that we don't want to. Like I said get somebody else's just trying to go find a safe place to pull over. Senator Ballinger. Thank you Mr one thing I'd point out if you don't change the elements of what cleaning is you just increase the penalty so whatever problems that they have with somebody getting caught you know maybe we want to do it because we're touching it anyway but it but that sound sounds like that is a different issue than than filling so I mean I my point is I'm okay with the bill as is from a legal standpoint if they don't like what the definition of fleeing is they should ask Camilleri Bill well the the the the concern was in your right we don't change the definition but for now making it a felony conviction which is a whole lot more serious and so we want to make sure that again if we're if we're gonna put somebody a felony on somebody's record we wanna make sure we get the right people. Soon Senator Rice as you have a question. A health center in addition. Quickly throwing in hand and that was the city not changing definition one question I will have is difference between playing in felony fleeing and the reason I'm asking is I look through this and I don't own the different classifications of offenses is. The stupid high school kid that. Somebody turned the lights on in thanks while turn around in the dark down a side road. But they shouldn't do that but it happens is is that last and run in a hundred mile an hour in killing somebody has a you could turn down the street and still run into somebody but. There is a margin of difference there so that would be one thing about yourself okay thank you. Sir could of Senator Ballinger of do you want to run a speed twelve fifty six yes. Senator Hendren do you will both for those on next week's agenda. Thank you Mr this bill is it basically provides for a little bit more flexibility in selling selling a record so essentially it does it does three things one is right now the the selling a record doesn't apply to crimes prior to now to the enactment of the code in two thousand thirteen Hartley says be interpreted that way and so this opens it up so whenever you commit a crime you still petition for for having your record sealed and then it also there's a specific limitation if you see on page two one twenty eight that if you serve time in department correction then you can't have your record still this would remove that limitation so even if you Sir to a time in the department of corrections you still have your record sealed and it also sets a a time frame for the prosecutor to respond and object so one thing that's really important is is it still takes a person to go through the application process to to get a basically approval from a judge and only after the the prosecutor is contact and have the opportunity to object to it so we're we're not modifying anything on that other than just setting the time frame of thirty days represent avoid court with prosecutors Association to get this put together obviously several advocacy groups that like to see some some criminal justice reform type things and provide a mechanism for and honestly demonstration this committee in this legislature truly does believe in second chances and I am happy to answer any questions. Questions from the committee. C. none is there anyone from the audience to speak for against. Seeing none Senator Ballinger would you like to close for your bill yeah I'm closing I moved to pass a motion to pass. Second from Senator Stubblefield any discussion. Hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations Senator Ballinger you have passed representative boys bill. Do you like to run H. B. fourteen fifty five. I would think so much this is just simply a a cleanup bill for the Bar Association we don't talk about letters of attorney no when use that that's on a form we we do powers of attorneys and so it just moves the code in line with what actually is being done and in practice in the field and provide full clean up happy to answer any questions. Questions from the committee. See non anyone to speak for against from the audience saying none the Senator Ballinger would your clothes rebuild I am close I move do pass. The second from Senator Rice all any discussion saying none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed. Motion carried. Our congratulations center Ballinger you have passed representative Collins bill. I am going to pass on S. B. one sixty seven I had a judge that asked me to. Because they will they could not be here this morning to testify against it. And if you will. Of Senator Garner wanted to run. H. B. fifteen oh six this let me see if he's gonna be able to make it. Senator Garner is only one. I will be a man and a half before he gets here you need to get a bottle of water of anything or anything we are waiting. Nice to present H. the fifteen oh six Mister amend this bill brought to me by speakership for repairs to be in our law. A a lapse when it comes to hoax bombs or things in our terroristic it threatens Act. I'm out of breath I ran over here. And in the second. What bags have it. And in. We consider like terroristic actions there's a multiple different things could be considered that there's actually holds a materials but this defined as actually using an incendiary device or a hoax bomb to be included in a second part it has to do with them. Had in that hole substance you actually had a hoax bomb in there as well can you increase the felony from a Class D. to Class C. that'll take any questions. Questions from the committee. Real house bill fifteen oh six. See no questions from the committee is there anyone here to speak for against the bill. Saying no one here of Senator Garner would you like to close for the bill I'm close to. Blows your committee. Motion to pass from sent to Stubblefield second from Senator Ballinger. any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye All opposed motion carried congratulations Senator Garner you a faster bill. Saying nothing else on the agenda we are adjourned until next Wednesday at nine thirty.