Judiciary Committee- House

Practice where people are sharing people's personal information for the reason to intimidate them has grown in prevalence across the United States and Coles many young people especially to have a hard time if you look back to cabinet the the Catholic high school students from Kentucky who went viral in a video with an indigenous person at the steps the DC during the March for life that school and students received vitriolic hate across the board so much so the school actually had to shut down when the larger video went out show the full context show that what happened wasn't as bad as they thought this problem has grown in United States and will continue to grow I'm happy that we are introducing legislation here to try to fix a problem because of the four becomes more of an issue there are some federal changes happening with low as well to try to address doxing what this bill does is basically three different parts first it if you look at definition it will send communicate communication concerning a minor to a social media platform with the purpose to frighten or here's an even more you can read the definition there the second element is that person the minor has to and receive these communications and have a reasonable fear of their physical safety if those elements are met in you're going to the secure criteria and with the debate came out in committee in the Senate in was you know if your seventeen year old kid who might soon as doxing information it's when your classmates we probably should give you a felony but in the most extreme cases of this we've actually seen people take their own lives or be hurt by other members who show up at their house and try to do harm against them to look better be that tiered approach basically the default would be a Class es misdemeanor if you don't meet the more due to proceed with that I'll take any questions committee. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we do have a couple of individuals who have signed up to speak against the bill a recognized Christopher Keller come to the table. Once you get to the table if you will identify yourself and then you make a president will you have to present to the committee. That yes when it turns red it's good thank you madam chair Christoph Keller I'm I practice law and court upon grooms until law firm in little rock I represent a variety of media clients as well as other civil litigation clients come back my concern with this bill is that it's far broader than what Senator garner is attempting to to criminalize which I certainly think is is concerning troubling behavior and I'm not here to stand for it but the problem with his bill is that it isn't limited to what we would consider to be doxing hi doxing is is is posting private information about a person their address their phone number their email address online so that they will be harassed by other people an overwhelming amount this isn't limited to that it applies to any identifying information that could be a person's. Facebook profile picture it could be their name so to to illustrate this I thought of three different circumstances that I think would be. Criminalize you could get charged with a misdemeanor or felony for doxing that falls under this bill but is not toxic so the silliest example is is I went to the razorback game on on Saturday and the student section of the razorback and booze. The point guard for the other team that state the coordinated the point guard for the other team last year Alabama starting point guard was the number thirteenth overall pick in the draft to seventeen years old was minor. So if people went on Hogsmill and said Alabama's point guard is number so and so everybody bill. They have. Communicated they've transmitted set for posted compact communication concerning a minor to intimidate him that is the that's the first element of of Mr garner's bill and all that person has to show is that he was and reasonable fear of physical industry injury after that and the person posted on Aug bill has committed at least a misdemeanor if not a felony. Here's something a little bit more serious. Say you're a parent. And of a of a high school age students. And a kid transfers and your high school and you hear from somebody at the other school that that kid got kicked out of school for sexually assaulting somebody and it's true. And you as a parent you go on your Facebook group for your school when you say this kid is dangerous and you need to walk in you need to tell your kids to avoid. That is posting true information about a minor. On social media. And that I mean that is a that is a misdemeanor or a felony under this bill but the real impact that this bill is going to have his own minors themselves because we're talking about speech about other miners who's talking about minors on social media usually it's their their colleagues other kids to state your teenage daughter gets cheated on by her boyfriend and she posts on boyfriend so and so's a cheater. That is true information about somebody it's identifying because she's identified the person is not limited to just as a dressers cell phone number or something like that that is doxing under this bill for which she can be charged with a misdemeanor or a felony. So I understand senator garner is concerned I think that there are ways that this bill could be limited and tailored to to actually criminalize the speech that you're concerned about which is legitimate but the bill as it stands right now simply doesn't do that and in so doing violates the first amendment but really leads to these rather ludicrous consequences with that I've bye bye I'm happy to take questions. Represent call and you're recognized for a question thank you Sir Mr caller hi thank you so I am curious because this language that you referenced there and I know is discussed in the Senate into is instantiated the cyber bullying statutes so I'm just curious. If you think the transmission in furtherance I'm sorry transmission sending or posting communication with those various purposes is currently in violation the first amendment and currently leads to those kinds of situations that you reference I am concerned about that senator representative Collins I appreciate the question at that that hasn't been raised in a recorded decision before the Arkansas court of appeals of the Arkansas Supreme Court I know one law review article at least that has argued that it is unconstitutional but as it pertains to this bill there's one additional problem with that that distinguishes it from the cyber bullying Bill and that's that the cyber bullying Bill has an additional element that it has to be part of a. Per pervasive severe pervasive campaign against that person was this has no limitations so a single Facebook comment about a minor can qualify as doxing here but it would not qualify centrally. Follow you're recognized for a follow up. Well then I guess my other question because there's another element to this one here that says that it has to cause a minor to be in reasonable fear of physical injury do you think that is comparable to the other element in the I ruling statute or do you think it's because it seems like it may be greater than the other element I think it's it's kind of apples and oranges represent of come on so I think the the the. The additional element in the server billing statute goes to the defendant's here the criminal defendants actions right where is the the the element regarding fear for personal injury goes to it's it's it's kind of taken out of the true threat analysis from from first amendment law it. I think that their distinct concepts. Thank. Members any other questions. Seeing no other questions thank you Mr filler for your testimony. Next person who signed up to speak against the bill is your presence way service was Rosen's week please come for. Jefferson's one Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers and Mr counted head on the number of the points and I just wanna point out several problems with the bill some of which are such a repetitive talks about public private or identifying information and there are plenty of the plenty of information that is totally in the public domain maybe on the sports page of some sixteen year old kid caught a touchdown pass or whatever that's that's identifying information it's that's clearly in the public domain then it refers to a malicious purpose and malicious. Is not defined here and is so long as we're talking about of mental state we need to we need to define it otherwise you're going to have a significant problem I brought this up in front of the Senate and Senator Ballinger looked up and saw a malicious appears one other place in the statute in the in the criminal code or act in the criminal statutes and it's not find there either but up but I think it is up in a case like this because they're all sorts of of of possibilities of sending information I think you need to define of malicious intent refers to doxing and then it says you don't have to docks you can just transmit send or post. But I think the biggest problem here is who's going to be doing this ninety nine percent of the time it's going to be other kids it's going to be of the teenagers of and you're gonna have a number of high school seniors who were by definition eighteen years old who were ineligible juvenile court and you're going to give them a criminal record over something that is against not right to do necessarily but is is prevalent protected gone is court practice prevalent particularly at the misdemeanor level I think that I would make a couple of suggestions one is that you have to be over a certain age to commit the offence. Released as a lease to be charged in adult court you have to be at least twenty or twenty one that's going to be the rare case or an adult is sending out this are sending out this information up for mandate and also mandate that it be and or mandate that would be tried in juvenile court up to a certain age rather than load up felony courts with a bunch of situations where you just have a teenagers who are who have who haven't yet developed necessarily the sense. To to be prudent with their social media. I am happy to answer any questions members are there any questions. Representative flowers you're recognized for a question. thank you madam chair and either the sponsor or Sir I'm sorry okay I'm sorry thank you. So it sounds like you're you're suggesting that. A lot of this activity would take place between juveniles and I'm looking at on here in terms of the classy felony and the penalty and and it suggests a requires monetary loss to the minor due to the offense is ten thousand dollars. or more and it goes on to. Require Okay up I'm sorry okay hi yeah can you I mean yeah I remember one I didn't I'll be stated right the bill but I it's hard to see where you're going to get the the monetary loss. In the city in these situations have what what's what's the minor's monetary loss going to be I'm not sure you know what we're talking about particular we're talking about information in the public domain we're not talking necessarily about social security numbers or or things like that but you're talking about. Things that anyone can go to the newspaper and find out or anything else bill says public. But you're running but it's a bigger problem even if there's no damage to any one you're going to have it's going to be a Class C. misdemeanor which is up to a year in jail and run over and fine of up to twenty five hundred dollars. That type of thing. Follow manager you're recognized for follow up senator garner can you give us some ex example so I really was confused at first thinking that was the fine but we're we're talking about monetary loss. can you give us some examples of what you were thinking about when you traffic this yes ma'am people compose people's vital information like he mentions the upper so secure number out there and say I hate this minor uses social care number make up fake account in and set up thank records in a neat their names things like that there's and as you may know the dark web is all kind of scheme people comply with personal information to Montero the hurt that minor is also calls to come if somebody comes there is a destroys their personal property and things like that that's what's happening these big viral cases they're actually posting their dress online then people were going there they might just we like to mail box and different things like that which could be in it entered into that amount to system as well. If I could respond that the problem is what senator garner sellers for two is already crimes identity for all. Setting up a someone using setting up a. I understand the distinction here though if I take your social your number in open account in my name identity fraud if I put your social your number out there and somebody else does it the net just a distinction in the law I believe and that's what this bill would cover so those people there's an example cost warning as well where I called the police on behalf in Seattle I'm I'm I'm at this address number and somebody and then the police show up there of course form because I think there's an actual crime going on that leads to violence the situation I'm not actually there in fact this happens to most obvious cases this gathering different state never playing Xbox got mad at each other I'm not there but I'm calls in that hole or to happen even though somebody else is doing that action was police was a third party use using that information I would say this distinction not to interrupt. One more for weapons one work thank you so much so just to be clear we're we are extending liability for these monetary loss to the. To the perpetrator which could be a juvenile so say for example there is let's say there's a fire or let's say somebody you know commits that crime then they'd get. Penalized You know for their crime but then this is also extended to the juvenile who put the address out and then they're going to get penalized for the same crime as well as for doing this they could be if soon they meet the other bills of of the dock scene as we read it they could yes ma'am. The reason why I entered this tier system originally I just had a kind of a a class a Mister felony which of the lease amount skewed me I'm getting off topic ahead and you know colleagues in the Senate and the attorney here said that was too extreme for every case so this tiered systems here because I think most of time it should be a misdemeanor and I think the majority of these cases will be. The issue came up in the reason not fall for this to be in there is the example of give you example there was a paraplegic girl who at had got a two point seven million dollar settlement she was injured in a car wreck whenever she received that money at eighteen she started buying houses and her friends started coming to our house friends and then they put stuff online against her her public information saying she's a vegetable somewhere to roll down the hill stop around this particular. Her mom walked in with her hanging by USB cord in her closet. To understand these are minors I understand that this is pretty harsh penalty but if you're going to have somebody to that level if they commit suicide and that is a prevalent thing with experts our young people I think you need to be stiff penalties I think the vast majority time prosecutors is just two teams going at it is going to anything but for those extreme cases and like in that example. They try to go to like they had to go to traditional kind of legal criminal code to try to punish those teens because it wasn't nothing like this that they could direct the grab and go after that's what this is becoming more of a thing across the nation so we have this here for this new problem which in a dress and all. This residence far do you have swaggy everything else yes of I can just response to what what he has to that there you have the extreme cases but this bill isn't narrowly tailored for those extreme cases it's one thing to use so secure you know private so security number set up an account but you're also talking about information information that's in the public domain then it doesn't involve anything private and of and where if you have something that's totally within the public domain then the person who puts it out there hasn't necessarily done anything wrong committed fraud the second of of. The second aspect of is is that it criminalizes again people that but for which there is literally no damage either monetary or physical and and is done almost exclusively by by juveniles and the question is really whether you really want to get into. Are into that and put them in a in a in a criminal court and if an adult court particularly senior high school senior under the circumstances. Thank you for your testimony. That is all individuals who signed up to speak for or represent the Ferguson recognized for a question. Yes. The thank you madam chair of a senator garner. Thank you you talk about in issue. And I want to get some clarity on it my grandson. To attend high school in Watson chapel high school find love last year was telling me about the thing that was going on with the children they would email you with some sort of challenge. choking. Or a leak in paying toward the leaking or or the take any track in actual alcohol is this the kind of situation that your bill would address. Something different the only distinction I would say roll top of my head is we limited this social media platforms even though that definitions fairly broad because what's a social media platform can be that way I don't know if the email like a grand so saying would fall or this but it could be if the challenger. Was done in the person had a reasonable fear that is the intentionality six say I sent it to you just as like a prank to everybody it wouldn't fall or this by Senator you to try to intentionally cause you to have a reasonable fear for your safety or do something in as much possibility could I I did a little no a bit more about the specifics of the case to say fall under sorted give a lawyer answer on that but just okay that's how thank you thank you and you. Seeing no other questions Senator Garner you're recognized close to your bill yes ma'am just one point we had a much Meryl definitions in the original bill or that the two opponents spoke against an originally so I took the language directly from the cyber bullying crown it's been on the books I believe two thousand twelve with how the communications defined as representative calling brought out so I thought that was under the books and that we should use a similar kind of definition to make sure we don't miss certain communication it come under this secondly I I just. If you look at the law that we have now for cyber bullying the example that the first gentleman gave I thank. Could fall under that it doesn't require repeated is severe or extreme behavior not just nice to repeat it so I just these skies following kind of hypotheticals just don't happen under a cyber bullying when technically they could not think that this the biggest distinction is that reasonable fear I don't think a prosecutor's we approve that Fossen you you know a you know a meme that says something it's usually of I'm reasonably fair from a life is whenever I put your address out there so I'd go get this guy at this address then you will want elevate yourself to that actual minor have a reasonable fear nothing does a good distinction just address some of the issues but with that madam chairman close thank you so much. Member senator garner his clothes furs Bill what is the wishes of the committee. Representive Smith you're recognized. I move. As it we have a motion to no there's not amendment on this one I'm sorry is there more 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 congratulations you've finished your. I have so only see one hand. That there's to call the roll. Representative Shepherd. Representive Shepherd. Representative Ferguson. Representive Ferguson. Representative flowers. Representative flowers votes No representative Nicks. Representative Nicks. Representative Richmond. Representative Richmond votes yes representative Cavenaugh. Representative Cavenaugh. Representive Gazaway. Representative Gazaway votes yes representative berry. Representative berry boat votes yes representative Crawford. Representative Crawford. Representative Scott. Representative Scott votes no representative Slape. Representative Slape votes yes representive Clowney. Representative Clowney votes no. Representative Cooper. Representative Cooper votes yes representative Richardson. Representative Richardson votes No representative Collins. Representive Collins votes yes representative McCullough. Representative McCollum votes No representative Hudson. Representative Hudson votes yes. Representive Underwood. Representive Underwood votes yes representative Smith. Representive Smith votes yes. Representative Dalby Dalby votes yes. Members the bill passes there are ten yess five knows and five non voting congratulations you're patched your bill. Members of the house bill fourteen sixty six house bill fourteen sixty six represented worn is indicated he's got to get to another meeting. Your term to that one real quick. You're recognized to present your bill thank you madam chairman. This bill is cleaning up old language it had a provision for a second District Court to be held in Mountain Pine Mountain Pine is roughly eight miles from our courthouse two thousand nine was last time a court proceeding was held there it is a costly process to have the judges and all related personnel leave the courthouse and set up court in a different location is a belief for the judges in the court coordinator that all people in garland county including Mountain Pine are being are being served will through the one courthouse into courts there's no opposition of which I am aware I would be glad to take any questions. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions representative Warren you're recognized close for your bill I am closed and would appreciate a good vote. Members representing board is close for his bill with the wishes of the committee I have a motion to do pass there any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion say aye. Any post say no the ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill thank you madam chairman thank you Committee. Members moved back up to the top of our docket house bill eleven sixty two representative Maddox you're recognized to run your bill. We have an amendment on the bill. This. This call you more to join me at the table. I can't understand a word you said sorry about that I usually can hear you thank you all take the mask off mask masks someone to join me at the time certainly certainly. And. Members while you're looking at that we have with this so. Someone is helping today initially said two euros helping I'd ask the members of the committee to remember actually your father had a serious health issue last night so that's the reason why she's not here with us today but we appreciate your recommending in serving in. Representing Maddox you're recognized to present the amendment to your bill thank you thank you madam chair and the amendment is very simple it just adds Senator Ballinger as the Senate co sponsor that is all the amendment does. Membership for the presentation of the amendment is there a motion to adopt the amendment adding a sponsor I have a motion by representative had sent any discussion all in favor of the motion say aye. Any opposed motion carries you know recognized to present your bill. Thank you madam chair thank you Committee. Committee no we always talk about that this is a very simple bill I'm gonna be completely Frank with you this bill is not real simple so I to I'm gonna Provide a little context I hope you will be glad to take any questions I think it's just gonna provide a little bit of clarity once we worked for about try to be as brief as I can in two thousand five the Arkansas legislature created deed called a beneficiary deed this is an excellent estate planning tool which allows a grant for the deed real property to a grantee or grantees and upon the grant was passing it transfers to the grantees by operation of law ended avoids probate it is also were vocal bill for any reason or for no reason which provides tremendous flexibility to the grant tore I use this deed in my practice quite often it is a very effective estate planning tool it is gaining in popularity across the state however this deed has particular language in there that says that this transfer is subject to federal and state claims for reimbursement so all my bill does it strike that language in essences it removes the federal and state reimbursement from the statute so that's what this bill does now I'm to tell you why that's a good idea okay or try to anyway so in my in my practice and my experience in talking to attorneys all across the state one of the things I hear all the time is an elderly couple or even well in a couple closer to my age of I'm not elderly but. They'll come in and they'll say I'm scared I'm going to lose my home to the nursing home and they said that all the time I'm gonna lose my harm to the nursing home and there's and they're scared and that's not exactly how with a curse but it's a real fear and it should be because there is an issue there I want to talk about that the issue is if someone becomes incompetent say they have a stroke they have an accident they go into a nursing home and they don't have the liquid assets to pay for the nursing home care which in my. In my understanding Elise local in my district is now about six thousand dollars a month for for inpatient or for nursing home care most of my constituents I would tell you most the citizens state of Arkansas I don't have an extra six thousand dollars a month to debate out month after month after month would do in the liquid assets but a lot of them do have a home so on it and to get to what this does so what happens is if if they going to the nursing home and they've used this beneficiary deed the state can come back or the federal government and the state can come back and make a claim against their estate basically bring the beneficiary deed into an estate and in essence sell the home and to pay the federal government and the state back so it's a real fear and frankly this is something that that's always bothered me in my practice because I see it a lot I want to tell you once I was bothered me so much Currently a person can avoid this by creating what's called in your revoke herbal trust so you create the revoke herbal trust you put all your assets into the or vocal trust and those are not susceptible to these claims right so the nursing home no one can come in and touch that but the only people who can use an era vocal trust people of great means because one they're expensive and to most people in Arkansas a don't have that assets to to build a tie them up and not build it to access them fairly easily so any revoke will trust doesn't work for most people but it it provides a wonderful vehicle to avoid probate and avoid these Medicaid claims for people who are fluent right but it doesn't it so if you're caught in the middle there there's no help for you. You go you goes to probate or they open a probate because the beneficiary deed I make a claim against the estate you lose the home that's why we're always here I'm scared I'm gonna lose my home so I know I'm I'm not been long I try to go fast so for the past. Well for about the past year I've I've been looking at it options and what I found was very kind of exciting to me High enough that excites mental that's going to scary but so I always happens when you get your et cetera uncertain exactly right so and I hate to admit this but counted up the way I did I I normally hate taxes but you know Southwest Conference foe but. I look to them for policy a lot because frankly they seem to be having went to doing a lot of good things will they've created a fix for this there's is called the T. O. DD or transfer on death deed so what that does is it's just like our beneficiary deed but is not subject to these federal and state clients right so. Texas and I have Mister Moore here to assist me in this office but I know Texas Florida Arizona and I believe. There's a handful of other state to fix this problem and it's headed this way nationally so I was excited to see that so then when I became concerned about was really two things one do we comply with federal law you know this is federal monies into what's going to cost it yes I mean I think those are the relevant questions this does comply with federal law and I do want to be clear DHS I spoke to mark what yesterday they're not coming today they have no objection to this bill they're not even gonna show up they're fine with it so that I think that's a great step it is comply with federal law so we drill down on the numbers and Mister Moore not spoken at length about this we believe this could Kerr if if my bill becomes law goes into effect this could cost the state of Arkansas around sixty to a hundred thousand is what we're estimating that's it six nine thousand dollars for the day just budget so as we all know now that we've been here that's nothing for them again they're not opposing it and so I think this will be a wonderful way for our constituents to avoid this fear to make good estate planning decisions and it's not gonna because the state of Arkansas any money whatsoever couple other things. What people always come to my office and say aye I'm gonna deed my house to my kids right they're going to the house to the three kids that way the nursing home can't get it so they want to do that all the time but that's horrible estate planning you know what I always tell them is that's fine as long as you can tell me that none of these kids are gonna get divorce Irvin to be sued an inmate of financial problems you know because you're giving your house away but that's what people are doing I I call it estate planning by deed and it's a horrible way to do it but again they cannot for the trust they can afford their vocal trust because they don't have the assets so this will give them a very very cost effective way to allow them to pass on something to their heirs that's all this bill does I could go on and on but I think I will I will close from a bill and I would no excuse me House stop talking at this time not like does Mister Moore to to speak on if he could. Let me find out first is there any questions so far. Okay I see no questions Mister Moore you're recognized so please state your name and who you're with and you may testify. Thank you madam chairman and call your Mormon attorney with respect to the grass in Northwest Arkansas my practices state planning long term care planning long term care planning special needs planning asset protection planning to. Carrie Fortner there's probably concerned that does this bill affect comply with federal statutes to federal Medicaid law requires that a state having a state recovery mechanism so states have the option this is all kind of five forty two U. S. C. thirteen ninety six B. D. for their supervision there's an aid which is the mandate that a state must have estate recovery to the extent of what is the statutory definition of what is a probate estate so what did the decedent die owning as of date of death but then states have as an option subparagraph B. that subparagraph B. allows the state to have what's called an expanded a state recovery essentially in two thousand five in this need with or when this statute originally came to an existence that's what Arkansas opted for there was an expanded estate recovery mechanism so by taking that language out of this particular statute does nothing for ensuring that we're still in compliance with subcategory eight we are still in compliance with that but the temperature on the national level is shifting there is policy concerns that have been recognized and Congress now has in front of it on the federal level the idea of either AT making state estate recovery optional or be putting provisions caps on what estate recovery. Yeah could collect so this. Bill that representative Maddox is proposing is in line with the public policy that's being recognized from the Federal down. The main reason though that I'm here to support this and to to assist with this it this is bad for my business I'm the type of lawyer where folks with assets higher to help with this scenario those are my clients all day every day. The folks that this helps those are the people who can't afford me the people who cannot afford long term care insurance that the people who remind me of my great uncle who. Stayed in his house well beyond the point in time in which he needed to be home alone without care because he was not going to allow that whom his only asset to be taken by that nursing home nine it in essence it was gonna be taken by the nursing home but there would be a claim he was going to leave things to to his loved ones so it's those individuals that this really impacts and another thing to think about in this to what is another public policy for this is one thing that I see every day and Thursday the practice privately probably see this is the same example the representative medics initiated where you've got someone who comes to you who wants to give away the house wants to do something promises a five year look back you can't do that and then immediately qualify for eligibility because gonna be penalized based on the value which transferred the five year look back at that point in time you're too late to the game your only option at that point in time is to either eight get benefits and relinquish your property through your state or B. don't get benefits and try to get the best you can most people opt for option B.. N. B. as I'm going to stay at home I'm going to make this work what happens in those scenarios every day we see at a fall a stroke. Improper medication management what is our next step then our next step then is nursing home. Those individuals if we can release some of the fear that this bill offers in letting those individuals know you can get some help Arkansas has home community based waiver programs those ARChoices programs assisted living programs there are other options out there these individuals could utilize but for the fear of losing home this is an excellent bill that solves a problem this is an excellent bill for. Rule our Kansans for our Kansans at all they have is savings account in our house so I I think you should all support this. Members are there any questions to Mister Moore represented guess what you're recognized. Thank you madam chair and I know you mentioned eligibility Assuming that a person is still competent and able to execute the beneficiary deed but they know that. The nursing home may be in their near future. How does if someone were to execute a beneficiary deed within a short period of time prior to entering the nursing home how does that affect eligibility and how would that affect the claims yes that's a great question a beneficiary deed is an incomplete transfer it's not a complete a gift it's distinguished from a deed where a remainder interest is transferred with the reservation of a life estate which would be impacted based on the valuation of the asset and underlying life expectancy tables but because this is a revoke herbal transfer it's an incomplete gift there's no transfer of assets for less than fair market value to create a penalty. You need to follow up represent Gazaway. Members any other questions. We have no one else was signed up to speak for against the bill representative Maddox you're recognized close for your bill. Thank you madam chair thank you committee I appreciate your attention to my long winded dissertation there I just like to point out I just want to make sure we're clear that and I said it but these avenues already exist for people who have some who are someone fluent and this is not gonna cost DHS frankly any money I really think it's good policy and I appreciate a good vote. Members representative Gazaway is closed for this bill represented Ferguson you're recognized what we can do better 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 as amended. Please say aye. Any opposed. none opposed motion has passed you of the past your bill as amended congratulations. Thank you madam chair thank you Committee. Members let's turn to House Bill fifteen fifty eight you're recognized represent the fight. Representative but you're recognized to present your bill thank you madam chair. These cleanups up here for a reason. Well it it very well may be we'll see how this goes. All right of House Bill fifteen fifty eight was brought to me by some root retired state troopers that live in my county and the they all get a little older and and right now under present law they qualify every year at the range and the the problem is a lot of times they have doctors one was some reason they can't be there and then they've got might do a make up my may go weeks and sometimes months without being qualified that's what they simply ask the they they receive just what we receive if we go out get a a concealed permit we get five years and that's what they're asking for is for five years in this up of of permit another would allow to be be able to take it out of state under the one they have right now the federal law they are allowed to go all fifty states with the right now this bill in the end it it it extends that to sheriffs and appointed sheriff retired sheriff should I say the given that privilege and again this we made this bill before they had to be in good standing they have at least ten years of. A retired at least ten years from the of the state police and easily be able to check the retirement and we if they're in good standing it is pretty simple I'd be happy to answer any questions at this store. Representative clan you're recognized for a question thank you senator and representative fight would there be an impact on state police revenue for I come to you I'm having trouble understanding you there I'm sorry would there be an impact on and state police revenue due to non payment of these fees not that I know of again they would be tested ever under present law right now they be tested five times and under this bill that will be tested one time in the five year period. Representative Hudson you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair I'm looking at page two one beginning at line seven through ten. Of B. two B. what are the training requirements that we are exempting them from. But it's standard training the that state police I have right now under the present law would be just. The. What the area under the present law the federal law run and statute doesn't change. Follow up manager you're recognized for follow up it's I haven't changed it that's in the law right now is what I'm saying okay what is that training entail. Well it did you'll have to ask the current Bryant that I don't know okay thank you. Members any other questions. No other questions we do have a couple of individuals who have signed up to speak against the bill we have colonel bright with the state police. And Mary Clare McLaren. Hello welcome FOR. Thank you have a seat at the table Colonel brought fuel a dinner for yourself and then you may proceed. Thank you madam chair bill Bryant director the Arkansas state police. Thank Clara Clorinda turning for the Arkansas state police. Colonel bright you're recognized. Thank you madam chairman of we are here to oppose the bill but I wanna make it clear to remember this committee nobody this watch and we have the utmost respect for all of our retired state troopers throughout the state they're very qualified law enforcement officers but the reason opposition is we already have two pathways right now for our retired law enforcement officers to carry a weapon is representative five alluded to we have a federal and state law that requires him to qualify once a year she qualification course. the other route or path it is just like any or ordinary or or keys and if he wants to get a he or she wants to get a concealed carry permit the basic we have to take the training to formalisation trainee in the second phase of that is our enhance security which was passed last session to where they have to do an additional eight hours four hours that can be waived to where they can carrying a prohibited place so that's the current pathway we have on the books I thank the bill exams the fifty and the training requirements and you know I've been a pharmacy director since nineteen eighty six I think training expression for law enforcement is key when you shooting firearms muscle memory and qualifications so very important that if you do care that farming need to qualify and be proficient with and I think that's why in the enhance security statute that we require every our cans and tissue qualification course You know to pass the bill only addresses retired state pollution we have great law enforcement officers for police departments and sheriff's office this bill only addresses them so insane you we're X. what's so important is when you qualify. Whether it's it's it's a law enforcement officer retired or the enhanced or concealed you the structure sees you know once a year or or every five years in the purpose of that is kind of a check and balance system the case as you get older you have any fiscal limitations or any mental limitations that way those instructors who do qualify you or get to observe you can detect those otherwise if if they don't have any structure requirements you basically senior for me and and and nobody really observes you so those are the kind of the the main thing we do have fiscal impact of. They want to waive the fee that's fifty dollars in the know right now we're into another committee this morning the bill was pulled with a they wanted to waive the fees for all veterans you know this of a concealed handgun fees been around since nineteen ninety five it is you know of a state agency depend on general revenue and Special Revenue so I think we have probably four hundred ninety retirees right now but it would be an impact there but we also have to consider all these other bills being filed this legislation that could be a fiscal impact upon the state police we use that money the only run the concealed handgun session section but we also use the previous P. operations and in a valid anything out the alternate over to miss before. I'm yes I would just say about the training M. it that the proposed reason for the bill is that these law enforcement officers who may carry a concealed in all locations where an enhanced concealed carry license holder would be able to carry They are what can already qualify under state law as long as they to carry concealed as long as they are retired in good standing they had ten years as an active law enforcement officer and a qualified every year the so the proposed reasoning for the bill is that these constituents and representative fights District are not able to. Always qualify every year and so they want five years but that does not explain why they want to excuse themselves from training all together if the retired law enforcement officers we don't know how long they've been retired and they may not be I'm aware of the current laws regarding any we just passed in your ground that will have to be incorporated into the training that we give for that that we have our instructors give um the enhanced carry training we developed that would just within just the last couple of years and they've specifically added to this bill that they be excused and that the sheriff's be excuse also from the enhanced carry training we feel it's very important. When they're carrying into what or otherwise prohibited places that they are aware of the dangers and and whatnot and and where those places are it's not it's not clear from just to. Recruiting in the law it's pretty complicated and that's why there are so many and there were additional hours allocated for the enhanced a license and so it's not just a matter of excusing these retired law enforcement officers from having to get there qualification every year because it was then they would be willing to undergo the initial training for the concealed carry license and perhaps pay the fifty dollars if they're retired they may be over the age of sixty five and be be entitled to pay the which I believe it's thirty five thirty five dollars so really what we're dealing with is excusing them from any training. indefinitely perhaps and we just feel it's very important that law enforcement officer through qualification on a on a range that is governed by a firearm safety instructor or a A firearms one of our instructors that is certified by the Arkansas state police puts odds on a licensee knows that they are of general can. Tell that they're of reasonably sound mind and that they can safely and handle a firearm. Members are there any questions of these two witnesses. Representative called you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair so there's not a fiscal impact statement attached to this bill what is the fiscal impact we know. Again this is just the elementary it's fifty dollars and we have for ninety we don't know how many retirees will actually apply to do this but consideration is all the others I'm sure if if we passes for the state troopers would surprise we've all sheriff's deputies the in the state and also police officers of stay come for with the same language. So there's no no number we just don't have a number no Sir okay do you have anything for. I mean I can just do a quick if we have just a four hundred ninety twenty four thousand dollars yeah four ninety times fifty cost twenty four thousand five hundred dollars obviously that's not you know a huge amount when we're talking about Our overall budget but because we do rely on special revenue and our fees were cut last session and the alternative funding source that was used or was supposed to cover those that cut has not not produce the amount that it was expected to produce You know any any person any you know. Reduction in our special revenue is going to result in an impact to our M. and I. so it's not something that we're. We're in favor of. Represent a slight you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair of the in this is explicitly for retired troopers is the owner said correct turn yes Sir that's correct do you know anyone on this committee that will probably come next round hard having for sheriffs and deputy sheriffs to receive the same treatment as retired state troopers that retirees of those offices would do that I believe it would serve I had does some people from the I think it's a police chiefs association want to know if if we were going to oppose it or not I told that we were in. Well I know one committee member that will be run bill for shares retired shares for danger thank you madam chair. Evidently is senior citizen day in the committee. Thank you owned up to it representing slate all right any other questions a representative Collins I apologize you're recognized for a question I'm sorry and and I don't mean to step on represent slips point because I think it's will take but I am curious our service already eligible under this like under the current law yes my understanding that was before my time is is here I'm not sure when exactly pass but I'm sure some of the the reasoning behind it back when it was passed or she refused to be reelected every two years so they only did one term I think that's that that's just a guess on my part but maybe representative slate can. Publish your hat back on let us know. Members any other questions. Thank you thank you for your testimony. Represent a fight you're recognized close for your bill. Thank you madam chair. in in my original bill I did not I did have a law enforcement and the colonel expressed to me that would be impossible for them to check all law enforcement will not they were in good standing and that's the reason I took it back to the state troopers presents very easy for them to check every time I talked about four hundred and something troopers that they have that are retired I I expect most of them to do the normal every year qualifying these are mainly for the older troopers as I say that don't care to have one that they can carry to all fifty states and with that but I'm sure I would to ask for a good vote thank you. Members represent the fight is closed for his bill what are the wishes of the committee. Members we have a motion to do pass on the floors or any discussion of the motion to do pass. All in favor of the motion say aye. All opposed say no. A representative fight your bill has not received the number of votes. Have you you may take your clinics thank you. Members get down just because our last few bills we're going to be represented Gazaway let's move down if you don't mind to House Bill fifteen fifty and ideas buster Smith to come and take the chair please. All right chairman Dalby are you prepared to present your amendment I am members there is an amendment before you of all it is adding isn't yes to the word clerks and adding and changing the singular salary to the plural salary and this was at request of representatives like. And if there any questions be happy to entertain them if not I move for the adoption of this amendment all right members are there any questions on this amendment for chairman Dalby. Seeing none all those in favor of approving the amendment you have before you let it be known by saying aye. All right you may proceed to present your bill thank you members of this bill is a bill that comes to us each session and all it is is the is setting the salaries of the District Court judges in personnel for certain District Court this comes every session this bill get sent out to all the court personnel prior to the session they have an opportunity to review it Clark and that in represent the slaves cases county judge caught the fact that there needed to be an S. on the end of clerks and so that's all this bill does everybody there is no opposition to it and everybody has had the opportunity to visit and look at a certain age and I'll be happy to answer any questions are there any questions for a German Dalby it's a nineteen page bill I'm surprised we don't have a few questions for you so I can begin reading on page one. No if you do that only those two issues up here. All right I'm seeing no questions what's the wishes of the committee if you don't mind I don't mind making the motion I'll make a motion to do pass as amended all right that's good all right. What are the wishes of the committee all those in favor say aye as amended okay any posts there is none thank you chairman Dalby pastor bill thank you members thank you members of the committee You. Members with that we're going to turn our attention now to representative Gazaway. we have the first bill that he represent Gazaway will be presenting has an amendment to it it's house bill fifteen sixteen one. Represent guess what you're recognized to present your amendment. Thank you madam chair. Members what I have the amendment that you should have before you. on house bill fifteen sixty one adds language to page three specifically. Lines three and four what the. What we did was What that portion of the bill does is it that exempts certain groups are not eligible for transfer from the department of corrections to the department of community correction and apparently we had left out a couple of groups that should not be eligible for that transfer and those groups are those groups of folks who would commit a terrorist act or other certain sexual offenses and those are defined under 5-14-101 and so we want to make sure that those were included in the exemptions of the group who is not eligible for transfer from the department of correction to the department of community correction so that's what the amendment does. Would you like to move to adopt your amendment I see no questions thank you madam chair of moved for the adoption of the amendment members we have a motion to adopt the amendment all in favor say aye. Any opposed motion carries you know recognized to present your bill. Thank you madam chair. I have here with me judge Glenn who is here with the judicial council who can give some additional explanation and I think context of this bill but generally I what I'll tell you this bill does is it defines target group. For purposes of transfer from the department of correction to the department of community correction and so basically when someone goes to the penitentiary. They are in some cases eligible to be transferred from the department of corrections which is again what we traditionally think of as the Arkansas state penitentiary to the department of community corrections which it we typically talk of in terms of like a regional punishment facility are pia. R. C. F. regional correctional facility sometimes you're those terms used but they're a little less They're a little less structured environment where you're more focused on treatment they're more focused on rehabilitation then what you see in the actual department of corrections and so what this bill does is it defines very specifically the types of offenses if a person is convicted and sent to the department of corrections. The types of offenses that would be eligible then for transfer from the department of correction to the department of community correction and then again there are some exceptions to that which you'll see on page three of those specifically exempted are and also at the bottom of page two things like violent sexual offenses certain other violent offenses terroristic acts and other sexual offenses again are exempted those would be not not be eligible for transfer from the department of correction to the Department community correction this is a bill that was proposed by the judicial council and I think all the stake holders who have been involved in these talks the prosecuting attorney's association the judicial council department of corrections to my understanding that everyone is on board and so if there any questions I'm happy to answer all men of course I am honored to have judge going in here who I think can probably also help answer those questions as well thank you. Members are there any questions. Representative college you're recognized for a question. Thank you I just was wondering if you could help me understand which offenses we are taking out of the target group in which we're putting in it it's a little hard to follow but is there some sort of a breakdown you could give us. I think the way the. Okay Hester turned red so. There you go you're on now all right we're not allowing of violent offenders that's not the purpose of the transfer we want people that we can be able to help in a region in court because. Lee transferred to community correction no less likely to get in trouble and come to the court system eighty C. reciprocal rate is more is higher then community correction so our focus is on people that we can reach helping mainly the to be honest with you it's people who have substance abuse addiction problems yes we when we were reaching out to in my for the for the I come from a court. Follow. You're recognized for a follow up. Thank you I guess I mean. Tell me if I'm wrong but it looks like that that Class B. felony with non violent non sexual felonies had previously been eligible for community for the division of communicable and now will not be in residential burglary same thing is this right am I getting that right and and if so why I guess what's the rationale. The bill is not perfect up of from a residential burglary I believe Mr road where it is going to speak on that we we didn't get everything we like to move up but I think it's also good to have judges have flexibility in in sentencing individuals allowed to go to community corrections so that gives us a little more flexibility there. Ballinger by respond also and I agree with judge Quinn. In that I think the first thing it understand is this is the product of a lot of negotiations between several groups and so that we actually had this bill last session and it and I think there was some that the groups weren't able to really get there on a compromise that everybody could agree on again your bring in several groups the table from the prosecuting attorney's association to the judicial council to the department of corrections and you know we're trying to and in trying to reach that agreement it's my understanding that in this bill residential burglary specifically would not be eligible for transfer and that's really one of the main differences between maybe the existing law this law you know I will say residential burglary is a very serious offense Class B. felonies you pointed out it carries a minimum five years maximum of twenty years in the Arkansas department of corrections you're talking about somebody and we talk about residential burglary someone who breaks into a residential residentially occupied will structure so place that someone lives with the intent to commit a theft or a felony there in so you know we we think the home is a sacred place it's it's a place that we want to protect above all others and if you're breaking into somebody's house maybe you should be eligible for transfer from the Department community corrections I understand there's going to be a difference of opinion on that or some people who are going to think that if you break into someone's house that's depict that's technically non violent you should be eligible but then again when you have all the stakeholders involved in that or at the table like they were in the negotiation of this bill they're gonna be others are going to say no that's a very serious offense we're talking about invading the most sacred space that we recognize which is the home and if you do that and you get sent to the penitentiary for it you're not going to be eligible for transfer and ultimately I think that was the compromise that was worked out is that residential burglar would be left out of that again as. Judge Quinn noted I think Mr Rosenzweig I have the most the up most respect for is going to be here to say that he thinks that it should be added in and I think that's just going to be a genuine disagreement that. That will have. And if I may add on page two that the that list is very inclusive all the little things covers. Represent first you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair Just for clarification with the residential burglary peace that that that would be specifically non violent because if it were then it would be a different kind of. Crime correct me with the robbery or something else like that and I'm asking as a non lawyer. So my opinion on that is that residential burglary the way it's defined is technically a non violent crime I think we have aggravated residential burglary where where you. I have a weapon obviously if you enter someone's home and threaten to kill them you're going to be facing number of charges probably some some more serious than residential burglary but nevertheless the fact that you if someone breaks into again what I think is a very sacred space your home with the purpose to commit a felony or theft that's something we ought to think seriously about whether or not those should be people that we would be sending to. community corrections oppose the ATC. You're recognized for follow I'm not in a. I'm noticing on here though that breaking and entering the state is on here. And. Can you describe clarifies. Some of the differences principally. So breaking or entering is a lower level offenses it it's going to be below Rick residential burglary for instance you get a breaking or entering into a car or any other structure or. place that a person is is trying to keep private and I don't I can't remember the exact definition but basically it's unlawfully entering or remaining in and again I can be a number of things that we're a place where you're not supposed to be we sent residential burglary apart and make and and recognize that is really a much more serious offense because it specifically deals with the home residentially occupied the structure where again breaking or entering can be a car so and then also have the added part to residential burglary is you have to have not only are you entering someone's home but you're entering it with the intent to commit a felony or theft and so we recognize that is more serious than breaking or entering we would allow transfer for breaking or entering we would not allow transfer for residential burglary. Members any other questions. Saying no other questions we do have a couple of what we have Jeff Rosenzweig who's come to testify against the bill you're recognized to come to the table please state your name for the record and then you may be yes. Jefferson sort of Arkansas Association from within slurs and I'm not here to endorse residential burglary but what I am here to endorse it is giving the courts the flexibility to deal to send these people to the department of community correction I will point out is represented Gazaway I gave the definition of it's not occupied structure it's in our queue hi I will structure doesn't have to be occupied at the time in the definition includes vehicles campers that type thing and Furthermore of the legislature has determined that tool sheds garages it's center are also occupiers and structures of for this purpose so a of in this actually happened in one case a tool shed where people of shock crash was the aim to be an occupied structure for purposes in that case of an of of an arson charge but that's the the definition of occupier will structure. and the problem here is it's it's one thing to you think of the residential burglary as someone who breaks into a house where there's children there and they come in at night and do whatever and of obviously that's very serious well when you have someone who goes in the tool shed and steals the rakes in the lawn mower or whatever that's that's also residential burglary and that's the type of person who because the system should have the flexibility to deal to deal with a particularly since the community correction centers or of so many of these people are there for are controlled substance problems drug offenses why are they breaking into someone's tools that are breaking someone's garage it's get money to buy drugs and so what you're doing is excluding by definition a whole subset of these are people who you're you're trying to get of and that I think the system is is capable of distinguishing between those people who are of the is the serious residential burglars the ones and the ones who break into someone's home at night and endanger people and the ones who were just go in and steal something from the tool shed the actor everyone who goes to the department of correction there's a prosecutors report of circumstances they also have a copy of the billing information you can tell exactly what happened I think that the system is capable of sorting out those people who can and should go to community correction from the ones you can't and not just have a blanket category gargle did not categorical denial of the speech. Happy to answer any questions members are there any questions of this witness. Seeing no questions thank you for your testimony OAPs representing Henson you're recognized for a question thank you B. it sounds to me like the focus of of your concern about this bill is that residential burglary a motion are there any other issues within this bill these problematic I you know I think they're probably some other. B. felonies that are request there there's controlled substance bees apparently their craft beer there in this our system embedded from mine looks C. added it appeared that that was the one that's good. It's going to cost that would cause the most serious problem and certainly the in terms of the greatest numbers and there may be an odd something somewhere that might make you've got you've got the fence including as far as I can tell even the B. felony thefts are or covered so you're dealing the the problem appears to be just residential for. Thank you. If when would you like to respond also. If I may respond to even throw the specs would finally these these he's identified the minority in cases dealing with a tool sheds and things of that nature Mr road ways a great attorney I've had in my court and if the defense attorney can negotiate down and find a better way to get his client in and to the community correction that I think that's the issue is and is not the law here the. Represented one. Thank you madam chair and not trying to gang up on Mr Rosenzweig here but I do want to respond to what he said and I agree with. The judges consider the judge's comments but particularly. Of this idea that These cases can't be distinguished in the system they can and and in fact they often are I mean the point is. Mr Rosenzweig it and is a great attorney and all those defense attorneys if you have a case for someone broke into the tool shed obviously he's gonna be there advocating for his client that they shouldn't be convicted of a residential burglary and many times of those cases are pled down to lesser offenses that are not residential burglary again you've got prostituted suppression on the way that they choose to charge these things someone breaks into your tool shed there's probably a likelihood that they may just be charged with breaking or entering as opposed to residential burglary and then the last thing is you know this deals with the transfer from the department of corrections to the Department community corrections and one of the questions that you have to ask yourself is how many people are actually going to go to prison in our judicial system if you're if I tried to a jury and asked a jury of twelve people to send someone to prison because they broke into the tool shed it would probably be pretty rare I probably one I probably wouldn't do that and most prosecutors probably would be trying that case anyway we've got a lot more serious cases to be trying to jury's murders and rapes and child molestation cases to waste our time bring in the jury and to try to send someone to the penitentiary for breaking into a tool shed and so while I understand his concern I think it's largely overstated the residential burglary cases that you see someone actually convicted of residential burglary are of the type and nature that you would think that and if they go to the penitentiary for it they probably should go to the penitentiary for and I think Mr run select knows that but I I appreciate his comments as a criminal defense attorney I understand where he's coming from again I just think we probably have a genuine disagreement. Representive Richman you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair represent Gazaway you said that a bill similar to this failed about two years ago. And that is that in your opinion that if this bill fails this time will be another two years possibly before we see something similar this. Yes it we know with regard to the bill failing I wouldn't go so far as to say it failed it just wasn't presented because the groups I think ultimately never reach the compromises. don't think it was even presented but you know we have a compromise this time again we there are a lot of stakeholders account the table this is the compromise that they've reached and I don't think we wanted to wait two years before we come back to that address again so yes thank you representative Gazaway thank you manager. Representative Crawford you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair representative Gazaway would you say that the judges prosecutors Arkansas department of corrections have worked on this bill for the last two years and that everyone is in agreement yes thank you. Members are there any other questions. See no other questions thank you for your testimony have Bob man who is signed up to testify for the bill he's waving off. All right representative Gazaway we have no one else who signed up to speak for against the bill you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you madam chair I understand the concerns have been expressed again I think you are. You know when you really think those three I think that they're largely overstated again This is a bill that is the result of a compromise of a lot of the state interested stakeholders have come to the table and worked on this research definition and so I think it's a good bill and I would make a motion to pass as amended. Members we have before us a motion to do pass as amended is there any discussion on the motion. Seeing no discussion on the motion all in favor of the motion police say aye. Any person of. Motion carries congratulations you've passed your bill is amended the manager thank you members let's turn to House Bill fifteen eighty eight there's a. Financial impact statement. If you want to take a look at that and represent Gazaway you'll be recognized to present house bill fifteen eighty eight. Thank you madam chair committee up if for for those of you who have had a chance to look at this it's a very simple bill simply adds to our second degree battery statute. The deferred the definition of what constitutes second degree battery. As. Against a person who is four years of age or younger. And yeah that's for all of the The required mental states that are already in place under the second degree battery statute I will tell you if you look at our battery statutes and course there are several it course it also applies to domestic battery so you have regular battery and then you have to mystic battery and the statutes typically mirror one another the same way you commit regular battery you also commit domestic battery accept domestic battery involves a family or household member and that's really the distinction between battery and domestic battery. If you look at the different degrees of battery and so you got first degree battery secondary battery third degree battery and first degree battery in existing law. It is defined so that if you. Our. It has it has a provision that if you are because serious physical injury to any person under four years of age under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life that is first degree battery. And so what we've done here is we've added that same category person under four years of age. That under first degree battery requires serious physical injury and has to be done under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. a pretty ever really serious case of a concert first degree we take that same language of a person under four years of age and put it into the second degree battery which is a again a less serious standard we're talking about recklessly causing serious physical injury and we it takes away the requirement under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life and one of the important distinctions between first degree and second degree battery is referred to the rhetoric under those circumstances involving a four year old or under is a Class Y. felony so it carries between ten to forty or life in the department of corrections under this bill you're talking about sex the second degree battery which is typically a Class D. felony which carries zero to six years in penitentiary so you're talking about a much less serious offence. That's what the bill does and I'm happy to answer any questions. Members are there any questions. I see no questions we have one individual who signed up to speak for the bill Daniel shoot. You'll come to the table state your name and you may testify. My name is Daniel hsu I am the elected prosecuting attorney for Sebastian County the twelfth judicial district I am also the chairperson for the Arkansas prosecuting attorneys association this bill was drafted for some very limited facts that come before us occasionally at the legislative committee considers these circumstances and then a bill gets drafted and the that so many of the facts that we're dealing with here three and three issues that is there's there's reckless behavior and that is not just reckless in the civil since it's in the criminal sense which is substantial and unjustifiable risk and then it is of such a nature and degree that the risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care secondly it must cause serious physical injury and what we're talking about there is is in essence life threatening injury broken bones that dismemberment very serious the physical injury thirdly it is the most vulnerable of all of us and those are our four year older younger under the law it you are presumed to be competent as a witness but that the gears change when you're six years old and very very many times I've had cases you cannot qualify for euro they have to understand and they have to understand that there relating the facts and circumstances of the case and often times if you're unable to qualify them as a witness so again you have to have the concurrence of these three things reckless behavior serious physical injury and a child less than four in two thousand seven you amended the statute. And extended this protection for your roles in the two thousand nineteen you did the same thing to domestic battery in this bill the circumstances here would be such that I mean you give a three year old a firecracker and the the blows his fingers all or very very serious second three degree either second degree or third degree burns like when you set a child into a bathtub and you don't check the water before you set the child into the bathtub I mean the again it's got to be the currents of those three things reckless behavior serious physical injury and a child less than four likewise a be happy to answer any questions. Members are there any questions. See no questions we have no one else was signed up to speak for against thank you mistress you for your testimony representative Gazaway you're recognized to close for your bill thank you madam chair I think that pressing internal issue gave an excellent Explanation of how this bill works and what we see in practice and so with that I would make a motion to pass. Members 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 say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you're patched your bill. Members let's turn to House Bill fifteen ninety three. House bill fifteen ninety three representative guess what you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you madam chair committee. This is a bill that would allow retired prosecuting attorneys the ability to carry. Firearm. This is a very similar to what's already an existing law with respect to law enforcement retired law enforcement and their ability to continue to carry a firearm. Our prosecuting attorneys like law enforcement have to deal with. Occasionally some pretty dangerous folks and if you're one of the. For the people who were involved in. Maybe sending them to the penitentiary sometimes you have some people who many years later may not be very happy with you and so for the same reasons that we allow retired law enforcement to carry a concealed. Weapon of we make that same exception or other I make this same allowance for retired prosecuting attorneys and I know that again the prosecuting attorney issue has been involved in the drafting of this I think you can. Be a little bit more explanation but that's just very generally what the bill does And happy to turn over to him for for more explanation Mr sure you're recognized. Thank you madam chairman again the Daniels to and the. This particular bill There's a whole history to this and in nineteen ninety three you pass the statute that was at three thirteen of nineteen ninety three permitting prosecutors in the twelfth judicial district which is my district to carry firearms right after that there were a whole series of laws that were similar but the language was utilizing emergency protective and communications equipment. Attorney General opinion in nineteen ninety seven was released and it said it is my opinion prosecuting attorneys in those deputy press deputy prosecuting attorneys designated by the prosecuting attorney are generally permitted to carry a firearm with their acting coordination with law enforcement agencies. Finally in two thousand thirteen you the legislature passed a ACT five thirty nine and it amended several statutes the kind of that was one earlier here today dealing with strictly with concealed carry but this statute covered a whole range of different statutes including one where many today and that's fifteen twelve two of two. and in that when that bill was passed there were a series of things that we is prosecuting attorneys agreed to do I took all of those and. They they match everything that is in current law for other law enforcement agencies you have to be retired in good standing from service with the you have to be immediately before retirement you were authorized to carry fire or you have to have appropriate written photographic identification issued by the prosecuting attorney's office you cannot be otherwise prohibited by federal law you have to have fingerprint impressions on file with the system and you have to have the compliance with sixteen twenty one one forty seven circle back to that you can't be under the influence or consuming alcohol or loosening of the drugs and finally the prosecuting the prosecuting attorney. shall keep a record of all retiring prosecuting attorneys are retired deputy prosecuting attorneys designated by the prosecuting attorney authorized to carry a concealed handgun in his or her jurisdiction and may revoke it the process the elected prosecutor can revoke these of for good cause shown and not for arbitrary capricious reason that particular statute sixteen twenty one one forty seven point four says a prosecuting attorney who elects to carry a firearm or authorize his or her deputy prosecuting attorneys to carry a firearm shall adopt a written weapons policy and use of force policy we have all done that the minute you got a visual you've got to use of force policy and weapons policy for Sebastian County I signed it the deputy signs in addition. We all have the badges. We all have. I. D. you cannot see it but in red it states that this person is designated to carry firearms even if concealed lawyers are at times very worsening about liability and I can assure you that we take this responsibility very very seriously in addition before I came before you today I contacted all twenty eight elected prosecuting attorneys either by email or I call them in person they all have. This of the they all utilize the statute and only some other people do it better is not required in addition I asked in the eight years that you have authorized this has there been an incident where a weapon was discharged there has not been we are very responsible and and I understand that a gun for certain people is that a the mere presence of it is offensive I have people in my office not all of my fourteen deputies choose to do this but those who do Take it very very seriously. and it's already been stated we do face threats been threatened by deputies and been threatened they've been attacks in the court room they've been the I mean I've heard of a person who got a twenty year sentence for rape and the date that he got out of the penitentiary and got back to that jurisdiction he came to the prosecutor's office to confront the prosecutor. the fact the matter is why we are employed and current law allows us to be so armed. I mean you're gonna probably catch me at home are you gonna catch me going to the office but think about it. When I retire you're just gonna catch me at home. So that is the reason we're asking for this change in the law. Representative Richmond you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair just help me understand a little bit better why why is it necessary to have all this permissive language within the bill. To do what sounds like to me people do every day in Arkansas on this get a concealed carry it are you trying to avoid the and I don't mean is like you're trying to avoid some but are are you trying to get around paying for the concealed carry class or know what what what it in again I don't understand why you just can't. You know being a citizen Arkansas gets so for a concealed here I I get what you're saying however this is as as I stated the original purpose of the the law was as we're working in association with law enforcement and it just I mean any law enforcement officer the essence of what he does is this baggage so it is it as the the credentials if you will to what you're doing when you assist law enforcement in my jurisdiction I might my deputies or myself we draft every search for we draft every arrest warrant and and and that's really all it just it's an extra layer of protection for me as prosecuting attorney to designate those persons that are going to do it in association with my office you can have a concealed carry I have a concealed Kerry of for events outside the office this is when you're like on official business. If that makes sense. Follow up manager. You're recognized for follow up okay I'm reading the language is talking about retired prosecutors and peep so I'm missing something here but I'm not against your bill I'm not talking against I'm just trying to have a little better understanding so unless representative Gazaway go ahead and talk a little bit thank you manager. Represent Gazaway would you like to add something that I would like just briefly to add that I think there are any number of ways that a person can conceal carry in Arkansas of course we have the regular concealed carry class a person go through and get the concealed carry in the enhanced Kerry again we have these particular statutes that allow for retired law enforcement already and prosecuting attorneys you know under this proposal retired prosecuting attorneys which would be another way that you could carry which would not prohibit you from carrying under you know if you went through the traditional conceal carry process and then of course of the the open and concealed carry under the ACT seven forty six that the you don't need a permit to carry in the state of Arkansas many people think if someone wanted to choose to carry under that theory I think they could use to carry out that three two but if you want to carry as a retired prosecutor specifically under this set of statutes this is how you do it and hope that helps. The representative council you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair as usual I am following the same line of questioning is representative Richmond so. Represent Gazaway I'm so just help me understand so under this statute if we if this bill became law retired prosecutors would no longer need to have a concealed carry permit to carry is that correct. That's not the way it would work the I have you before you can carry under might use of force and my weapons policy you have to have a concealed Kerry that's that's just basics no I'm not trying to get at any fees lawyers need pay fees so no I'm not trying to that at all okay thank you yes ma'am. Represent the slate you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair of the log represented Richmond I'm not opposed but I need some clarification on the when you training law enforcement written retired law enforcement officer has to have a firearms close and then they do the qualifications and a psychological exam some of this past even though but the. What I'm curious or is there something of global sheriff's office or something to do firearms call us it's a lot more data at the concealed carry and the go ahead Sir yes Sir many to many many several have done the enhanced several train and rigorously with the ease of the share or the state police or our local police departments of the it's like you said you you have to stay sharp and you have to be sure and again the S. as the elected when some retire and come to me and say Hey I want to do this I mean I'm going to do my due diligence on a run in C. I. see I'm going to do the things that you're supposed to take care of business to follow up manager you're recognized for follow up thank you with the prosecutor's current prosecutor holding the records of the county of of the prosecution or district is a C. I. see going to be alerted to show that the retired prosecutor with a concealed Kerry if you happen to have a traffic stop or something that the officer will know you have to have your badge. And you have to have your ID and it'll have to have that designation can have a say in how you have a retired Beijing if that's that's how but we don't have yet because you impose we could do it yet okay. Thank you motor. Members I see no other questions Mr Xu thank you for your testimony Mr a representative guess what you're recognized close for your bill. Thank you madam chair committee again what I would say is that this mirrors the allowance for. Retired law enforcement and their ability to carry it basically just treats proper retired prosecuting attorneys the same way you have to meet several requirements again as prosecutors you said there's pretty stringent requirements of use of force policies and fingerprints on file and in C. I. see checks and everything that you can imagine it before this so would be granted if the person chose to carry under this specific set of statutes as a retired prosecuting attorney again doesn't affect anybody else's or even their ability to carry under any other theory that they can carry under whether that's ACT seven forty six open and concealed carry is legal in Arkansas or whether that's the traditional concealed carry. licensing route for again under this route to just treats retired prosecuting attorneys the same as we treat retired law enforcement. And with that I would make a motion to pass. Members we have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion on the motion. Seeing no discussion all in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes motion carries congratulations you have passed your bill. Representative let's turn to House Bill sixteen oh four members there is a financial impact statement to this bill if you wish to look at that the representative guess what you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you madam chair. Committee what this bill does is it amends the drug paraphernalia statutes that we currently have in several ways the first thing that you'll see in section one is that it combines for purposes of considering previous convictions when a person is is convicted of say possession of drug paraphernalia and at the same time convicted of possessing the drug or the the criminal substance itself that that will be treated as one conviction for purposes of this section was so when you look at previous convictions. So. You know again If you get if a person gets arrested and they've got math and they've got to surrender and they get convicted of possession of methamphetamine and they get convicted of possession of paraphernalia because they had this ranch instead of saying for purposes of this act is treated as if you have to felonies in that instance it would be treated as if you just had one felony because I think that things are to close so closely related. And generally I will tell you I mean it as we read through the bill we get kind of go through it it should be with the I. that this is an attempt to. I take off some of the punitive measures and the way that we treat possession of drug paraphernalia. this is probably going to be a little different produce and what you may think that I will be taking here that the prosecuting attorneys would be taking in this instance where we're not trying to be as punitive as we have been in the past with respect to possession of drug paraphernalia specifically with it that possession is just for the purpose of use so that and I'll explain that as we go further but at and the purpose behind that is is we have a prison overcrowding problem and I think if you talk to many of your constituents about how they feel about putting people in prison many of them will say what we need to stop putting people in prison for all of this minor drug stuff. And really that's what this bill seeks to do again it seeks to take away the punitive nature that we treat possession of drug paraphernalia so in other words we don't need to be locking people up just because they have. Rolling papers were just because they have A pot it in Bridgend will will see that more as we actually go through the bill but just realize that that is really the purpose of this bill which is to just kind of take the edge off the way that we have historically treated drug paraphernalia and so that we don't again we don't want to be too punitive and imprisoned people for simply possession possessing just paraphernalia so the first section if you're convicted of paraphernalia and possession of the drug itself that will count as just one conviction as opposed to two. Section two. We can redefine a drug paraphernalia. In that. Section two deals specifically on page two lines one through five we're talking about paraphernalia. With the purpose to use okay so we make some distinctions between the way we treat paraphernalia there's paraphernalia that a person has which is just simply to use it to use whatever substance that is that they have things like pipes syringes things that are you for personal use only and what we say there is that will be a Class C. misdemeanor on the first offense if all you have is just paraphernalia with the intent to use. On a second offense that becomes a felony if you're talking about methamphetamine heroin fentanyl or cocaine so if you're carrying around drug paraphernalia yet that's meant to ingest or use those types of substances on your second offense that'll be a felony. Under this subchapter but anything else thank you just curing it for personal use that would be a Class C. misdemeanor. Our the next section. We talk about basically with intent to make to manufacture or to grow harvest cultivate plant and that you'll see that and and lines twelve through twenty the server twelve through nineteen and basically what we say there is if you're possessing drug paraphernalia with the intent to manufacture that's a Class D. felony it however becomes a B. felony if that substance that you're intending to manufactures methamphetamine here one Sentinel or cocaine so we still treat what we consider the most dangerous substances the most addictive substances very harshly to Class B. felony carries five to twenty years in the department of corrections but for things that are those of you so for instance if you're talking about marijuana plant grow harvest. Here is that if you're attempting to manufacture that that would be a Class D. felony. Which should be zero to six years in the department of corrections. The next part of the bill in this is kind of a substantial piece the bill prohibits stacking. And so what I would tell you as a you know many times when someone's arrested for possession of drug paraphernalia or possession of a controlled substance and also drug paraphernalia they may have. Multiple items of drug paraphernalia so for instance a plastic baggie Saran's a. Scales of pot all of these different things and so I may have at one point charge someone with twenty counts of possession of drug paraphernalia. that that may have been a little bit of piling on. I mean at some point when you charge someone for you know up to six years in the penitentiary for every back it plastic baggie that they have in their possession you know that's how a lot of times you hear that someone is looking at a hundred and fifty years in the department of corrections is because a prosecutor decided that they're going to charge him with one count for each. The single individual item that they had in their possession which can add up to some really substantial time and so again in an effort to. Be less punitive and to be more fair and to not populate our prison population with people who are just simply possessing drug paraphernalia. We say that if you have five plastic baggies. That's all paraphernalia you get one count of paraphernalia you don't get twenty counts of paraphernalia. And. That's a basically what the bill does and I'm happy to answer any questions and also before I do that. Prosecuting attorney she may have some additional comments. yes during the. Early days of covid I sit down with the defense attorney and the judge and the one think about this. And as we discussed it these are the three things that we thought needed to be reformed of it is not unusual the prosecuting attorneys bring forward bills to reform just last session ACT four seventy six the civil forfeiture Reform Act this was drafted by us this bill is drafted by us and it it does those three very important things when we pass the a visual offender act in the early and late eighties it had a provision that the father of something you were just discussing burglary and the associated felony burglary with like aggravated assault the object of the burglary does not count for purposes of the habitual offender statute this mirrors that. the the second aspect of it is it It carefully delineates between drug paraphernalia for a user and drug paraphernalia for someone who's manufacturing. it also draws distinction for those for drugs that are thank you very problematic very addictive methamphetamine cocaine to non hair one Lassell in again it It is only if you have a prior conviction and and have those substances detected in the paraphernalia lastly is the the stacking aspect of it and that is it's terribly unfair I get that you shouldn't if you have sixteen use syringes on your person you shouldn't get charged with sixteen counts under the law you candy you need to pass this and and you can't now I have a the Office policy about that but you know this is a thing for the legislature and Again controlled substance act was packed passed in the nineteen seventy three and this is significant reform that has not taken place in forty years of the model penal code was passed by this legislature in nineteen seventy five and this is the first major former drug personally for that and the that's kind of the explanation for that I'll be happy to answer questions about. Representative Connie you're recognized for a question. Thank you madam chair thank you a representative Gazaway M. prosecutors you I'm interested in the differentiation here between the two sort of classes of of drugs that we're talking about so basically that fentanyl cocaine heroin meth verses everything else you just mentioned that that other class that that sort of heightened classes more addictive and that's the reason why we want to target it differently but I think that you know as we're learning more and and we are learning that punitive approaches are not the best you know when it comes to to a lot of drug offenses in general why are we being more punitive on that category of drugs for use on the second time around on the second conviction than we are nonfat NO cooking here when. Well the the short answer to that is. If you have drug paraphernalia that has been all of hi OR has it's a meth pipe. Ipso facto you're using math it's so facto you're using fentanyl. So. Rather than just focusing on the misdemeanor aspect of it the other roof there's another reform aspect to it. And that is our drug courts which are highly successful I mean in my office if you charged with drug paraphernalia you're going to get an offer that is drug court even if you are that you will send so to me the you want to you don't want to get to the third or fourth offense I mean for we heard testimony I guess last week about the to be eyes and that approach the escalating the seven days in jail ninety days in jail penitentiary that is not the approach here the approach here is on those that are there more severe yeah it is a felony to felony now but if the second offense now is a felony so you do get that first upon without but on that second one I mean any man drug court you've been arrested twice at that point for possessing drug paraphernalia and it had to be on the you know that not all or meth or cocaine so. If you need drug court. Follow. You're recognized for a follow up thank you so you know I was talking to my folks in Washington County in and thirty percent of our public defenders caseloads right now as drug paraphernalia only cases is it your position that in those cases where it was only drug paraphernalia no drugs were found no evidence of drugs ever having been used that ipso facto just the possession of that paraphernalia is proof that those folks were in fact using. More than likely but now again are those cases under the the or a math where they. Or the other drugs I don't have the breakdown you know I mean I the way the system has to deal with it and and and District Court. Where you can put in jail. Respond manager it in addition I believe yep and in addition to those comments that I think no if if the person is found with drug paraphernalia it doesn't I think in majority cases in the case the person is a user there are people who carry things for other people I certainly seen those cases before they have an addict boyfriend in there carrying it around for them whatever the case may be so I wouldn't say that but I I would say and that's partly why we make a distinction between a first offense and second offense if that's your second time and we're talking about pretty serious things that it is much more likely that you actually are an addict and that you're not just curing it for somebody else the other thing is I think is is prosecutors you said. You want that felony conviction on the second offense are you what do you want that felony there because that's what we used to utilize drug courts and if you're gonna pleaded to drug court I don't thank you completed on a misdemeanor no I think you have to play down on felony and so again this is a way to try to be reasonable where if thirty percent of the docket in in Washington County is drug cases we don't wanna be sending people to prison because they had a bag or because they had a syringe I mean we have it costs a lot of money to put someone in the in the penitentiary about twenty six or twenty seven thousand dollars a year last ever call it may be up from that and we have to consider is a good use of taxpayer money to put people in prison for a wrench when we could be getting on treatment and I think that's what this bill seeks to do and you know I would emphasize this is supported by the prosecuting attorney's association and the prosecuting attorney's association is serious about justice and serious about holding people accountable but we also have a duty to the public to not waste their money and put people in prison who don't need to be there and if you talk to your many of your constituents I think they would say if the only offense and and to represent of Crowley's point if the only offense. Is that your you have possession of drug paraphernalia you didn't have to spend no you don't have to hear when you didn't have to mail you just have paraphernalia we probably shouldn't be putting you in prison. and specially if it was just for personal use we ought to be trying to get you treatment before we start putting you in the Arkansas department of corrections at the tune of twenty seven thousand dollars a year of your and my money. Thank you. Members I see no other questions. Mr shoot thank you for your testimony representing guess what you're recognized close for your bill. Miller talking on this bill so I don't want to belabor the point I think that has been pretty well explained I understand that many times in this committee we have that approach of you want to be tough on crime we say and at the prosecuting attorney's association certainly is tough on crime I want to be tough on crime I have been tough on crime so as prosecutors to. But we also want to be reasonable and we also have an obligation to not put people in prison for an increase the prison population over things like just drug paraphernalia only and so this is a what I think a common sense reform that is good for the taxpayer's again and it doesn't mean that you're not tough on crime this is supported by the Arkansas prosecuting attorneys association and so with that I'd make a motion to pass. Members we have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion on the motion. All in favor of the motion say aye. Any opposed say no the ayes have it congratulations you've passed your bill the manager thank you Committee. Members we have one more bill Senate bill three eleven representative Greg is here to present that bill so if you'll turn to Senate bill three eleven. Represent great you'll be recognized. To present your bill. Thank you madam chair and I'll try to make this as quick as possible I know you guys are ready to get home and sitting on just a second we'll see if we can figure out why we've got a yes. Everybody's marks office or we should be having the feedback. Well it's going to what we'll go ahead and go one if it's. Cells like we've got music going on now represent great go ahead and we'll let you present if it gets too bad will stop again okay thank you so Senate bill three eleven does to to centrally two things and I do have Jerry bread shall the director division of community correction here just in case you guys have questions so essentially what it the first thing it does is it changes the number of days for sanctioning technical in serious conditions violations it takes technical violations from ninety to sixty days and it takes serious violations from a hundred and eighty to a hundred and twenty days. The second thing it does is it changes absconding in so essentially right now. Whether you avoids for Europe's gone for two to three days or two to three years you're treated the same way so what this bill does is it essentially tries to break out what is considered anything less than six months is considered a technical violation and anything over six months it's then considered a serious violation so there's that the two main things that it does. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we do have Mister Bradshaw here stretch off you like to come forth and offer any testimony you're welcome. Thank you she just about summed it up so and that's exactly what the bill does We appreciate a good vote. That's awesome thank you. But we do have a question representative flowers you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair motion at the proper time. We have no other no other members in the queue for questions representive great you're recognized close for your bill I'm close for mobile and appreciate a good vote thank you represent greatest closer bill representing flowers you're recognized want to make a motion to pass members we have a motion to do pass on the floor is there any discussion. Seeing no discussion all in favor of the motion say aye. Any opposed say no. The ice seven congratulations you've passed your bill thank you for waiting thank you chair could. Members we have come to the end of a very long agenda we will have another law we're going to have long agenda so just be prepared for we have a bill set for Thursday. I will get those bills out to you but with that we are adjourned have a good evening.