Judiciary Committee - Senate

If anybody's looking for that bill there's additional bill that basically covers this alright at a future date that bill will be detrimental okay are they need Senate Clarkston here senator hammers on here. next one Senator Ballenger. We have. We do have an amendment on the bill sent to brown that's right it's sad because a co sponsored house co sponsored in in this is I have to bills that are identical in form except for one applies to cities and counties the other one's life to the state agencies but out but I'll I'll run I wanted time in you know the second should be easy to answer questions on but. Senate bill three thirty four for. Senate three thirty four we have a motion document in the second. I have a second all those in favor say aye hi our members been adopted you're recognized to present three thirty four Senate bill three thirty four this bill and substances identical to one that we do we don't with them two years ago and and passed out this committee passed on the Senate and then died late in the in the house and what it is is it just codifies the existing case also so Arkansas has in a lot of time to give the court you know a hard time about their decision so forth but one thing the Arkansas is done the better than probably most states as we codified a really solid eminent domain law when it comes to to taking property and how Yintech property so so this is essentially is codifying what we have so okay after the kilo decision a lot of a lot of states started taking property purely for economic purposes because that create more tax revenue by taking the property what this would do is we'd say that a purely economic person purpose is not as a sufficient purpose to take property so they have to have some sort of legitimate public use and that set up a mechanism for taking blighted or abandoned property that is consistent basically with the process that we have today I'm happy to happy to answer any specific questions about it the first bill that we're dealing with them to build three thirty four is the one that deals with state agencies of the state and so happy to answer any specific questions about it. Our members of our next possession of the bill any questions from members. Anyone in the audience that would like to speak for against this bill. Saying nuns Center Ballenger or you. Yes I I'm I'm close I do make a motion to pass the amended we have a motion to pass as amended I have a second all those in favor say aye. All opposed congratulations sent by. Okay on Senate bill three thirty five house amendment at in the same because sponsor and I just move that we adopt the amendment. Are we have a motion to adopt the amendment and second all those in favor say aye. All opposed. Been adopted recognised sent around so Senate bill three thirty five is exactly the same form except what it does is it applies to two cities counties and so this one does have opposition from the Municipal League however you know from my standpoint it's that is pretty much exactly the way the process happens today the the only purpose really in codifying this is that we can feel a little more confident that it will last so case laws only as good as the next next decision that that's made on a on an issue and and one thing that I meant to read right out of the back it and what you guys have heard this but I think it's reforms reading article to if you haven't read all the way through article two of the Arkansas constitution the Arkansas constitution as long it's all under the US constitution it may be worth reading but most of it's really boring but article two is not it's really really good stuff but section twenty two of article two says the right of properties before in higher than any other constitutional sanction a private property should not be taken appropriated damage for public use without just compensation and and I I think that the courts recognize that and and because of that that we have really solid eminent domain law in Arkansas when it comes to judicial precedent and I just think it's appropriate that we codify that judicial president. So having said that I you know I'm happy to answer any questions but it is the same bill and I do know that there's always one person wants to give their opinion about it are we. Anyone on the committee have any questions for senator brown. If not I think we have a couple people signed up to speak against the bill Mr Gerry blight Gary. He would come to the table and identify yourself. For the record. Thank you Mr chair play Gerry legal counsel with Arkansas just might turn on. Is it. Thank I think so. The better Mr that's better. said Billy Gerry Arkansas and legal counsel assignment Municipal League and first I want to thank Center Ballenger we've worked together on bills in the past and I think working on bills in the future and appreciate them listen and to concerned yesterday and one thing really appreciate him saying as we can be opposed on some bills and turn around to work on bills together the next day so I do have a lot of really appreciate that. And just provide our perspective agree with a lot of what Senator Ballenger stated earlier from our perspective we don't really see a need for this bill the one thing that has preserve the status quo of eminent domain in the state of Arkansas for all these years is article two section twenty two as well as over a hundred years the Supreme Court or Arkansas precedent on the issue that has stated on many occasions that private property cannot be taken for for private reasons to go to other private property owners or other private owners I do just want to point out one of the major concerns that I have heard from some city attorneys and cities in general on the very last page that it deals mainly excuse me deals mainly with procedural aspects skews me. The most the notably safe. My goodness. Most notably see for on the last page. from our perspective this I believe what this would have the operation of do in is requiring or shifting the burden of proof to the local government to approve a lack of an alternative thank you senator garner excuse me one second. Grieshaber. So we believe that C. for home the last page as I was mentioning would require the local government to prove a negative condition and that it would require a local government to approve a lack of any alternative and I do think that is a very high bar on any local government looks to take any action in this regard and I think you can hold up a whole lot of uh projects. On in that regard I think a good example could be if the city is needing their city will cover period is needing to widening a road and they can go ten feet from both sides who's to say that we can take twenty feet from one side and still accomplish the same length of widening the road but then the road starts Karvinen cricket and it might not meet some standards that they might be discussed someone else in this room I think the same can be said for running water lines you know if we can run a hundred feet labor a hundred feet of water lines in one straight line direction down hill but how do we prove that we could have gone three hundred feet around the area even if it would have required maybe a pumping station along the way to pump the water appeal to turn and get to the same location so I think that's one of the. Biggest Heartburn's that I've heard in regard procedural issues I'm also not entirely sure how the causes of action would play out on bottom of page three all right now most imminent an imminent domain cases start when the city is already filed an eminent domain action or counties filed eminent domain actions and on the front end this is after the cities already had to talk give notice to the property owner passed resolution or ordinance in regard to the public use of the other properties being taken and have good faith discussions and go six with property owner but if those negotiations fail or fall through then the city would filed eminent domain action and I don't know how the independent causes of action that burden of proof shift with fully play out in those situations if the city is already filed the action then a year down the road get the property owner come back and bring up a new cause of action when we are already working on the project or I've already made improvements on the project but I appreciate the opportunity to be here and appreciate jealous and me today and I can. Be happy to answer any questions best mobility. What does this section twenty two article to the address what you just described. Arkansas section or article two section twenty to the Arkansas constitution say wrote Center Ballenger stated earlier. And that private property is now I don't have the exact language right in front of me for the right of private properties before higher than any constitutional sanction a private property shall not be taken appropriated or damaged public use that's been stated a couple times that it is the strictest constitutional provision in regards to this out of all other states. Are any any questions for members. Garvagh Senator Garner you're recognized thank you so you did say that Supreme Court. Establish case law and also the constitution kind of covers this but it seems like we're just codified what is or the practice which is always a smart way to do things so that tourney's can rather than jump to the case and all the hoops can just go to the law itself to do that would you agree with that general principle that coal refined how the process works is always better expect if the code soon mean you're free with that is right. Is so think I think two thoughts that I think generally speaking I would agree to that I think the fear here is there are a lot of nuances. Sorry this Mike in the way of regarding I don't see nuances regarding eminent domain but and each kid every case is different there are different state I need your where every different sets of facts and different independent factors that have to be weighed and each and every case and the second part. The second part of your question thank kinda specifically deal with what I was discussing with the procedural aspects and I don't know if that is necessarily the case now that the local government has ever had to. Prove a lack of an alternative you know we do have to prove that it is necessary for the public use but necessary in and of itself you know what exactly does that all entail that that active all over German and seem like a high bar to me it seems like if your city was trying to put it straight in and they asked the property owners of both sides if they would sell it to him will only like this with consent and they said no that be enough to prove the burden that you couldn't do it seems like a very simple thing to get right to say no I will sell this to you and that be enough to meet that that procedural up assume you met the other elements of the of the Emily don't mind the property that seems like a not a high burden it seems like a fairly innocent thing do we disagree with that. I think that is a very valid point I think what we will end up scene and maybe not road example is not the perfect example of that nature I do apologize for that I do think what you could end up seeing is it be an easy to say look you've got a gone way over there you've got to go into a hundred feet that way and going around in it may not be feasible for the city one day but that service or energy but this seems like there to be a backdrop that that there's that the other elements that you're required to put that there for that reason when the met I think that any court in the land would not interpret you having to go through ten miles out of the way to accomplish that goal as a reasonable uses so many other elements in the domain is I just I don't see us about that really question more statements okay with that Mr mob justice in my question thank you for taking the science centre garner any other questions from committee. Thank you Mr area for judge thank you Mister chair thank you committee or Mister James Walton. Citycon one. You come to the of the table. Identify yourself for the record. Yes I am James all in here on behalf of the city of Conway in the Arkansas chapter of the American planning association. so I certainly understand this is a worthy cause of discussion you know it's it's something our country has been talking about for the last two hundred thirty plus years and so it's you know this this tension between public good And individual protection I think is is something that is is right and just for us discuss. What I want to share or some some aspects of practical standpoint from our perspective at the city of Conway when we approach these types of projects in hell you know the critically the in the in the article C. or that that section see where that might change some things in terms of how we do that and might produce some burdens that we don't might make things a little bit impractical. So from a perspective of of the city come we we often are actually always generally try to avoid going to through the eminent domain process which means a lot of times we are already paying above market rate up for property so it just just simply to avoid the the litigation and the reason being is that the eminent domain process is is difficult it's painful and there's a reason it's difficult painful and it should be difficult painful for for a local government to go through that but in terms of that if we could if generally if we can avoid doing that then we will we will do it at all costs to avoid that when I look at particularly language in C. two and C. three when we talk about the reasonable of the schedule to complete or the funding to complete bring up some examples of of issues that we have had in the past and and these relate to one our our our western or trail loop in Conway also another example is the the bright parkway in Bryan where we will have a court or on the map on our master street plan four in Conway it's been on there for for decades literally we know where the street needs to go we know when the city grows out that way that it needs to go there we know exactly where it needs to go. But in this situation the reason was of the schedule to completed the funding to complete it sometimes we go out and we try to acquire right of way before and it's not from a from a standpoint of trying to be punitive to the to the landowner it is from a standpoint of the that that poor soul is basically held hostage and when we get this week we have this happen where there's a corridor that we've got it listed on their piece of property and nobody wants to buy because there there's a court or there it's listed there there's an intent to build it we know what has to go there and so sometimes we in in an effort to be kind of the property owner and and relieve them from that burden of one certainty of women and not being able to sell the property we'll go ahead and start negotiating on purchasing that and often times there were they're willing partner but when you've got multiple property owners you may have somebody that it may be you know Daddy's farm and there's just. No getting around going through the the eminent domain process so that's an area where I think in terms of looking at this that this that could create a problematic provision with that. Additionally with C. for a you know relating to it not being able to be accomplished by using our requiring from a willing partner Blake was brought up sort of the the issue of a water line and. The you know I think another way to look at this this is for an example of a sewer line so often times and I I don't I don't want to bore you all too much with with the particulars of of sewer design but when you were looking at with inefficient system with your your your sewer system often times you want to have gravity mains in gravity mains essentially means that that gravity is doing the work for you you're not buying a pump station that cost you know two hundred fifty thousand dollars and and is a burden for the the taxpayers and ratepayers of that area to maintain in perpetuity. Now with the gravity main because it's so specific to a route and it's so specific to this is where it has to go because of topography that idea of a willing partner someone's not willing to have it go through their land it is technically feasible to go around that just means that the city will have to do to force my instead of a gravity may. And when you look at ideas of force mains that's not something that over the lifetime is going to serve the property owner the taxpayer's the ratepayers anybody because those are expensive to maintain and they just don't make sense you know some cities have to do those that were cities have any such sort of topography that can avoid them they do at all costs and so that that idea of the willing partner in in that that burden of proof in litigation I think can be really problematic so with that that that that's all I have are eight Senator gonna give question yes Sir on record or example I didn't really get. The issue that you said so if I have its property that's in your court or for your plan. Obviously people want to buy that but you tied it to you must have public funds is that correct yes it again I probably didn't do a great job of explaining that I guess so you because the way I see it is if you're negotiate with somebody you should have the money to if they agree to a to be able to pay it in no domain which in this case if you're tied to the funding should be similar process correct I don't see how that funding aspect would be the mess of the negotiations or it would change the process for anybody I just didn't pick up that law yeah and and I apologize I wasn't very clear so in the in that situation I'm talking about a court or it's essentially a quarter that we that we don't intend constructing immediately so it may be ten years down the road it's something that you know we're going after a bill grant we might be going after tiger grant that we we have every intention of building it we know that we're going to need it it's just that the process of acquiring the right of way we're wanting to go ahead and do that to release that burden from that property owner so that there's not that uncertainty that exists so the idea of that reasonable schedule to complete the project funding to complete the project we're going through the process of acquiring the right of way far in advance of when we're intending to do the project simply out of a out of this. Deference to the property owner to release them from the uncertainty of not knowing what's going to happen I guess how would that stop you from doing that though because it seems like. Until you actually have to go to the process eminent domain to take that property from them thank you just negotiating that would enter into this is that process whenever you start to have to actually take that property and pay for that with this we're kicking I just I'm not understanding how that would mess up negotiate yeah I think it's if if we do end up resulting let's say let's say it's a situation where we're trying to do it and we're negotiating with multiple property owners we've got three or four that they're great hunky dory you know with the whole idea of we've got one or two that that you know this is that is far more not we're not touching. A and so it's a it's an issue of we're not going to buy it from anybody unless we can we can acquire it for the totality of the right of way you know because it's it's not something that. Unless the unless the city can have the certainty that that this is going to be absolutely locked in that we know that this is exactly where it's going to go then we don't want to acquire part of the right of way and not not all of it for the project so in that situation where you have an unwilling partner we have to end up going through the eminent domain process then it kicks in this reason most reasonable us of the schedule to complete the project or having the funding to complete it obviously city wouldn't be able to meet that that standard in that situation so were were holding for the entirety of of all of that hostage in that situation. Maybe just my ignorance own House the plan works right I just don't see if you're going to the process to to domain those two forms I won't give up. Then you can reasonably require that you will buy the additional properties if you get on which I think is separate it is I just don't see that actually come to affect what you're saying aye maybe just my ignorance on that but I'll I'll just say I don't see the logic in that I think you're trying to sleep thank you. Senator boundary of question. Thank you Mr that when you all are our state is whether it's a road or or I plan in in the to the city. Do you do you take into the question whether or not there is a is a of a better route for or lease a compare Maruti jingo where where you can actually do so with the permission by purchasing land rather than by taking property from another person. It's good it's going to depend on the project with with something like a sewer project the constraints are there they're they're much more defined when you're talking about a transportation corridor you know often often times if that something that's going to involve any type of federal funding which this you know in essence we had a I had somebody read this and look at it from a perspective of a right of way acquisition person they said man this starts to sound a lot like me but which is the national environmental protection act in terms of that those steps of environmental assessment and things like that. But often times there is you know an evaluation of multiple corridors to see which one is sort of optimal and so with that the the city will look at at the cost you know this quarter is going to cost fourteen million dollars this quarter is going to cost sixty million dollars and maybe we could go we could go this route we might have an easier time and a lot of times the city the city will you know evaluate in that like man. I don't want to have to you know we've we've got some property owners in Conway that we we we try to avoid at all costs to to discuss the things with because we know it's just going to be very painful so often times yes there there is that a valuation multiple court orders in terms of looking at that and So yes okay thank you. You have a question for members. Senate Johnson you're recognized. The. So I didn't get everything you know of where to go to run the mail with the so you're eminent domain or are your your right away. You don't get the grant and then do that you said there's a timing issue are you not getting your right of ways and and stuff before you apply for the grant or are you saying this could be a problem if you've got a grant and you don't get timely done. Most projects I will say in that often times we won't require the right of way until we get the correct right so so we'll go through the process the the area where I see potential for issues are one in the and a great great example of this is the bright parkway and and Bryant Conaway's western are truly where we've had something on there for decades and I I I I know why we get we get calls about it sort of on a monthly basis of so many calls about a property this it will is the court we're going to go here and I say well yeah it it is it's supposed to go there in a civil what what's the timeline for the project and I and I I feel horrible because I know that they're they're they're talking to a realtor in that situation they are you know looking at purchasing the property they're trying to figure out how they can make make money on that subdivided thank you know without that and so what we have done in certain situations and looked at services situations is long in advance of obtaining the grant or even you know physically actually to the point of where we're we're planning on constructing it sometimes will try to go ahead and purchase right of way and sometimes you have willing partners in that sometimes you don't but if you that willing partners and you let's say you're you're we're gonna we're gonna put it in this location and then you get to where you're unwilling partner then the eight you know you can create some complex was will maybe we're not going to purchase from the willing partner in that situation because we don't have the that this project is not on go yet and so it it it it creates a situation of holding somebody hostage where we're trying to not hold him hostage they don't want to be held hostage but I think that that potentially in a situation could be. Of you know something that could cause some concern. Thank you. Any other questions from members. Mister Wallace thank you. Don't have signed up to speak for against the bills. So Senator Balaji wanna close review. Thank you Mr. So. If you currently you are not considering whether or not there's a better alternative than taking a person's property you're not doing it right and I think just like you said I think they are doing it part of the planning part of their investment all those things go in into it and and frankly like like they said they were they tend to actually give more than what the the value of the property is in order to be able to acquire in order to be able to to avoid the litigation going to court to acquire the properties they they they and that's a lot of time into planning beforehand all of that stuff will be put on its evidence to see whether the not they can meet the the four thousand men here which by the way let me just read real quick will be the case law on this so so essentially the case on this comes from the reins decision so the little rock person person trains. And element say basically that. Own second will be misers do they used to be so I have to open it up big enough. Right they have no inherent powers to this is regards to a city that they can exercise only those expressly given to them by the state to the constitution or by legislative grant those necessary implied for purposes of necessary replied for the purposes or incident to these express powers and three those indispensable not merely convenient to their objects are purpose. If they are not already making a decision about whether or not they could move the road over on to people who are willing to to granted or not then they're doing it wrong and so that the the reality is most of them are doing it that way not necessarily because it's morally right or whatever I although I think that probably is the case these people are elected by a constituency but they're probably doing it that way because it is the best practice it's for the most cost effective way to do it and will be easily demonstrated that that's what they're doing so it you know in closing I I think that that this is consistent with with Arkansas case law I think it is consistent with best practices I think the opposition really from this is is the kilo decision came down and when it did it was a windfall for some municipalities to have the ability to hold the case law would change enable them to take property in order to increase tax base take property to put in put in parts take property put in parking lots take property to put in some economic development thing and and I think from our Kansans perspective we don't support that that article two says the property rights above all rights and that that should should stay the case in Arkansas and the because that I appreciate a good vote a move do pass as amended. Our members we have a motion to pass. We have a second. I have a motion and a second is there any discussion. All those in favor. Senate All opposed. Resolutions brown your bill press thank you Committee. Senator hammer. I think you're up next. Yes. Thank you Mr could you identify which bill were taking of placer. Senate bill four seventeen Central Avenue okay. He's. Senate bill three oh eight three all right thank you. Mr Madden five will rigorously County come sit beside me. For the record can hammer State centre District thirty three. I will reverse thank any civil attorney. You're recognized center have thank you Mr chair for the sake of the respect of the committee's time you don't mind a mullet Mr Gruber explain bills for shortened to the point but I think you can be a little bit of that our expert thank you thank you Center hammer thank you Committee it is a I guess I don't think any civil attorney I was notified that we have grant funding for a criminal justice responses to domestic violence dating violence sexual assault and stalking program grant from the department of justice they're notified that if we didn't change the existing wall for sixteen eighty two one a one to the language pretty much that we we have that we would be eligible to receive all the funds to be five percent of the funds and so the screen is approximately. Nine hundred and thirty three thousand or so insert that adds up to about forty six thousand dollars and grant funds that we would not be eligible to receive if we didn't change a law and civil law basically in a nutshell allows a victim of a crime enumerated in the statute to request an HIV test of the defendant and in certain circumstances and so This is based on an issue personally accounting grant funds but I would think that any any county or any municipality in Arkansas that was looking to get these funds would be this law change as well so. Seems like good public policy to allow the victim to be able to request this consistent with the law required by the federal grand department justice requested so we just would ask that you guys support this legislation. Arkansas make sure that your mind is only pulled as close as you can to. Okay so difficult sometimes with a mask on the market we have. Senator hammer. You have anything to add. I think will of the first questions I see questions by the committee are senator garner you're recognized for a question yes Sir I see the code section what what crimes will be covering this where they could requested I see the code section and I'm assuming it's like sexual assault rape things of that nature that sector okay that's okay that's all one yes. Are any other questions. Senator John yes. Is there any substantiation of the evidence that would require this because. I mean this is just a victim. You know. I'm in there I had a consent would draw that's you know it's different deal this is trying to you know just a victim. If required and bodily evidence. Without substantiation of evidence I'm not a lawyer but. That seems like a you know you testifying against yourself. And impossibilities field without some kind of substantiation. Both. You know. This the accuser. Right so in the end. Little B. one BA now a current the current law allows upon a finding of a reasonable cause to believe that the person committed the offense and subject to constitutional limitations it's already allowing for the prosecutor to request this what this law would change would be allowed for the victim to requested as well and so not a prosecutor I'm not here testify as a prosecutor but I guess based on what I read on this issue. I don't necessarily think this is going to be used as evidence in a criminal trial it would just be used to to provide the information to the to the victim. And in a timely manner. But the prosecutor has a substantiation of evidence that would he would request that this is just somebody who's accuser says an. We're gonna. I mean. I understand the you know feel for the victims. This is an accuser. DO not prosecutor and and evidence asking for evidence. I guess what I would say is that. It's my understanding would not be used as evidence it's it's just for informational purposes for the for the victim. Six. Is there prosecutors in the room options are or prosecution yes we as prosecutors I would ask them the same question I guess we did add that have. Okay what was Senator John we may have that come up in a minute you want to hold off to we go to center ballot yeah share could could address senator yes options yes I just wanna clarify it by remove my mask. You sure can thank you wish you would thank you. Thank you the. Center center Johnson. I think what I hear you asking is. That if the victim. This is about it allowing the victim to bill to to request HIV test. So that they can determine whether or not they've been affected in the event of a soldier. Situation. The. As far as I'm I'm looking on page two line ten through eleven. It's going to be after that person arrested and charged with the offence be tested for the presence of HIV the person from which the victim is going to ask for to be taken is a person who has already been arrested and it's already been charged. And go ahead so the so the prosecutor would have enough evidence to file the charge that before this would be done okay I'm I'm good I'm good care thank you all right thank you. Part said about your. Okay all right any other questions from committee members. Any other questions from committee members. anyone. I guess you got a. Anyone here to speak for against the bill. You hear speak for the bill against. If you will of recognize yourself for the record. I am a Jefferson sorry Arkansas Association criminal defense lawyers their number problems with the bill US senator John Johnson hit on one of actually one of the first the use of the word victim in this case is a little misleading this is of course all statutory language need to read user this is a proceeding in which to determine whether the the accuser was actually the victim of a crime or not the and the sloppy language that is in the best of the Arkansas Code a with this this there has been no adjudication of any guilt or any I haven't seen this a grant of of. Protocol that they're referring to so I'm not able to comment on it and I would like to see it to see if I our little doubtful of the extreme interpretation of it but I haven't seen it so I really can't comment but the important thing to note here is that the court right now has the power to order a test this would take the power away from the court in the control of the court in place it in the hands of the accuser I don't know what other circumstance that someone who is not even a party. Can come in and require a judge to do something that you know if this requires the judge to order a test makes no provision for this makes no provision all for the fact that the person may be used to being an accomplice and may not have had even in any physical contact with the accuser even alleged to have any physical contact with the accused and their people who are charged with accomplice liability for sexual offenses all the time and I think we're sending a very dangerous precedent when you take away judicial discretion of and take away the ability of the judge to to weed out those places where it's called for maybe appropriate and in the cases where it's clearly not call for a maybe just an attempt to harass someone who is the. who is a defendant by getting a hold of their personal health information when in fact their personal health information such as a alleged accomplice is totally irrelevant to any. Senate center Johnson you're recognized. In this in this case is a job retailers in the is there a. I mean it may be for you or that in one. This is the forty eight hours. In that case is there a medical necessity for forty eight hours Womack and good that not happen through the judge do in the order the way I read it number I'm not a medical expert obviously but within that time at the forty eight hours with of the of it being given to the defendant's now the defendant may have been charged six months earlier it's requiring compliance with the court with these alleged victim request to recuse request within forty eight hours but it is apparently not forty eight not necessarily forty eight hours after rent ranch the way I read within six within forty eight hours of the information or indictment being presented to the first whether or not he's and he he or she some cost. This is The firm it is is there an expediency need for forty eight hours once help me help me. Yeah. Ask. Yeah and I can read and provide the information that I have missed arises Wagner anybody that's that's interested but I mean we're going from here pretty much the exact language that was provided to me it's just pursuant to thirty four U. S. C.. ten four six one the and then it goes as a certifies that it shall not be entitled to five percent of total ward unless the state or unit of local government certifies that is a law policy regulation that requires the state or unit of local government the request of the victim to administer to a defendant against whom an information or indictment is presented for crime in which by force or threat of force the perpetrator compels a victim to engage in sexual activity testing for HIV not later than forty eight hours of the date on which the information and I was present and so on I'm just I didn't I didn't draft predecessor began work on this bill and then not subsequently picked it up and so when we're willing to work with whomever took on on maybe making everyone more comfortable with that but I mean I have a document I can show to everybody that we didn't just come up with this language on our own procedures divergence in that has been accused of not judicata to anything I mean that is that correct. Right so we're talking about a person who could be totally guilty required to take an H. of the test will be existing law allows for the prosecutor requested the only change in this would be allowed the victim to requested like I said I'm not a prosecutor side and want to speak as if I was appearing in my capacity as a prosecutor but yeah my understanding this is this isn't going to be evidence is used in a criminal case is merely for informational purposes for the for a victim. R. senator garner your question. So this is my. Educated guess on why this happened from federal government and I've noticed is when I was watching like you two videos and certain add to pop up there's a new drug out there that if you are treaty within seventy two hours after being exposed a job be could actually prevent you from getting a job be it actually is a post exposure prophylactic that will stop the HIV virus be able actually affect you where you would get get the virus it's a new medicine is out there and I've seen and there's ads actually if you've been exposed to call this number to get it my instinct is this is a thing from the federal government to try to allow that Victor but no if they've been exposed to HIV by a positive test didn't get into this a medical system to prevent them from doing it. Especially in this case since this is a victim potential victims of sexual crimes that's my instinct of what that time frame happen from the federal government I don't have that peace propping that's a good educated guess but if these are truly victims and they've been exposed to HIV. Getting that treatment could actually prevent them from catching that that deadly virus so that's my thought of what that time frame dinner. Senator you have a question. Thank you Mr chairman and you know I had that question about was or some medical reason why the time frame was such as it is I guess what I would ask a Senator hammer Hester are there cases now we're a victim because it seems perfectly reasonable if you're a victim of this you'd want that information pretty quickly especially if there is some medical option available to you on timely basis. But is there a is there a case or other problems now with prosecutors not requesting it and and so we're going to make it where the victim can requested is has that happened. The reason for why this is being brought up is because. As I've been told their situations and that's the purpose of the grant money to help cover the cost of the getting done so whether the prosecutor or whether the victim and again we're just referring to what's been given to us as far as federal law in order to get to grant money this is what you got to be able to do of I would also draw attention I think that it's amended into the bill as far as department correction we let them take a look at because in the event that happens within. Within the prison system they want to be able to have the medical provider be able to cover it. Share can I insert something to well did that center Hendren I I I think so again I I you know a lot of times we bring legislation because we hear a case where this happened or that happened it sounds like this is more driven by federal requirements for grants and and again I see the reason for and I guess I would ask to straws make I mean your comment about the personal health information that's not relevant. I think we're this is a little bit different it is it is very relevant to the victim whether or not they've been infected or not don't you think that kind is it's not like we're asking about their whether they have medical conditions that are related to the victim this could absolutely be a factor for the car are you there is there are certain circumstances where there is a rational basis for the accuser of the victim whatever term you want to use to note of the situation I will point out again one it's irrelevant in the case of someone who is charged as an accomplice who is not charged with the hands on offense second another another thing I've noticed that the documents Mr Gruber sure in center hammered just show me which I'm not sure whether it's someone summary or whether it's a direct lift statute but this bill is over brought in another way it is the statute requires in cases where there's a latch to be forced the I say the statute B. B. the grant document so it does show me it's when it's alleged to be forced the statutes that are referred to have a number of ways one can commit the offense that don't involve force at all a number of just age related consensual offenses are included in here well I prostitute is include a message is a misdemeanor is included in here in other words the the grant if the effect summary that they just showed me is is accurate the grant only requires in in alleged force case not markers again but I think you're kind of making the point though that to even in a statutory rape situation it's consensual It's relative to the victim whether or not you know when this comes to be up to the point where it's prosecuted to relevant to the victim or probably to their family whether or not to that health condition existing could or could be exposed for well I would suggest that if if if if it's really relevant the prosecutors are Our with it enough to invoke the current statute in and ask a judge and the judge has the power under the under current law to order it in the appropriate case the prosecutor has the power to ask in a job and the and I'm assuming that prosecutors are generally responsive to legitimate requests and if and if they have a if they have a situation where they where they don't thank you that is necessary for whatever reason such as the a compilation accomplished six a situation that are going to do it and certainly or judges NO can you we these things out to them obviously so what I want so in county to have you know all the money they make and with gently gap I would like personally to to see the actual statute to which it requires risk refers not just a summary of this act told senator hammer second go up that I'm happy to sit down with him and and trying to work through some of work through language that would be. That would get where you want to go without being an incursion along to the way the judicial system is supposed to work. Senate senator Johnson you have a question. I've got the medical possibility but. Wouldn't the victim. You know if the seventy two hours for trans talked about me it is kind of like a. Can with rabies thing. You you don't know. This if that dog had rabies or not so you start that process in the same way with the Vicky victim in this. In this circumstances if there's the medical. Medical possibility for that to happen I would want to go ahead and take that. Even without this test this this that this makes sense I mean you. If there's medical possibility of those those stopping that. This is this is a thank you your user and then accused and then the charges been filed so you're you're possibly pass that seventy two hours so I don't know that this helps in that time frame. I understand it might help for a for agreement but I don't know that we need to change. Our court processes for grant processes thank you. But sure may I respond and then I've got a comment. Thank you and and center Johnson I see the ankle you're coming from I think what we would find though is that okay unless you can for the test and then what do you do and. And if if the. Let me let me just say this measure we've been have a sidebar conversation in between the two of us down here three was I think there's a way we can get there I think we just need to get you have to have a conversation with him in order to get their that their status okay because of I think we probably all want the same thing nobody wants not access to anybody through grant money available through make make it happen if the chairs willing I'll just go ahead and poles down and we'll work it out and I'll come back next week if we got to have the amendment I may not change anything they will go ahead go but given the light of the testimony to come today as sponsor I'd be willing to do that sure would allow that and we'll come back see if we can all sit the end table together okay that's good. What will work for you next week okay thank you. Senator hammer you will run ten sixty two I'll run a run test. Yes hours. The grounds of a portable Speaker testify but I respectfully committees time ago it and. Mr. You're recognized thank you. House Bill ten six to spend filed by represented five myself this is the share sale say legislation part of the A. C. legislative package what ten sixty two does is it doubles look back period for DWI Arkansas has one of the least impressive D. W. I look back periods only five years long along with only four other states Maryland Missouri Mississippi Rhode Island and. Part of what just not involved what this bill does is it extends look back period from five years to ten years because here's what's happening this is a real selain county case you've got a driver this got multiple D. W. eyes but when they get to the five year period those drop off then maybe five years and three months they get another DWI they can't go back and look at those previous five years because it's only a five year look back create we've got a situation that really drives this where an individual had multiple D. W. eyes the five year look period dropped off and then they had a significant accident involving injury to others after the five year period they could not use those previous five years history in order to bring about a stiffer conviction as a result of that they were not you know not able do anything this aligns with regards to how some of the other states around us look this would actually bring us in line with other stage animal read down the list real quickly just solve them Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho have ten year look back illinois' a lifetime Indiana seven I what twelve cancers ten Kentucky ten Massachusetts has a lifetime the vast majority of our ten years or greater and the only the four states that I mentioned are around five years so what this does is actually give give us greater accountability for those that just don't seem to want to stay off the road if there D. W. I. with that I'll be glad to answer any questions March. Thank you centrust you. To the. Thank you and I'm not against the bill but I don't know if you can answer question former somebody KM because of. I have had a. Constituent to the where was employed at one time but. When he came on board. And that he had a. The Debbie I. He was out hunting. In part. And right while it was parked and went to sleep. And they had never driven. And what. Evidently it is Arkansas law. The universe start your trip. What you said in any you can get it the the data you know that drive it is there any differentiation. In in House somebody that had that type deal because it was calls me a lot of trouble as the employer I couldn't let him drive motor vehicles. Is there any differentiation. Find out some of that status than. What you're talking about a repeat offender that truly is dangerous. As far as it relates this law I don't believe it does I believe that would have to be addressed. In the law you're probably referred to that's out that I can't tell you that it is my prized but this would this would get somebody like that DO because they're going to have a history with the W. if you had it if you had a history of DWI it would catch him and I would say to address that issue would be to look at. That particular law but it would be included in this if he had. This is a one time that the discovers a one time not a repeat offender. I'm not sure I understand your question is when you look at the history. The one time is the same as a repeat offender. It would be I thank you would be calculated in the number of times okay thank you thank you. Any other questions from committee members. September closed I will say this first year of the you know five years D. W. I actually gets multiple stacked up in that five years and all of a sudden magically five years it all goes away and then there's one more and that's the experience like what we have down sling County adults think it's right not too extended out based on what other states have shown to be and effective means in order to hold people accountable for their actions with that I appreciate a good vote our. Three of. I have a motion to pass I have a second. I have a second all those in favor any discussion. All those in favor say aye. All opposed. Resolution Mr thank members committee. I'm going to ask the. When asked Senator Rice to come up and share. Because I have a couple bills from DHS. Just over you're recognized present your bill if and the crew was going to start with if they recognize themselves part I'm a sensible failed. And this is. The quintet. Good morning my name is Christian Harper I'm with the Division of Children and Family Services thank you for being here we're looking to House Bill thirteen fifty eight thirteen fifty eight this deals with disclosure of information by children a concerning the transition period and I'm gonna let Christian Plainville. Thank you thank you Mr chair at the house bill thirteen fifty eight is largely a cleanup bill will clarify the eligibility requirements for our youth and the extended foster care program which is an option for youth ages eighteen to twenty one so that the language aligns with federal law it also clarifies the conditions under which a youth may return to extended foster care and this will also make a correction for juveniles who do not have the capacity to transition to adulthood independently and does need to be referred as you'd need to be referred to the office of public guardian's rather than adult protective services which is currently in earnestly noted on the bill in the law and finally in this bill clarifies a youth in DHS custody may share information about his ex his or her experience with department at his or her discretion and after consulting with his or her attorney a line item and this would primarily be used for child welfare improved improvement and planning efforts and I would note that we worked with several different individuals agencies organizations while developing this bill no one was in opposition and I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. A committee with any questions. Senator garner yes ma'am what's your name again Kristen Harper and the Division of Children family services yes Sir Sir Stubblefield she definitely enhance your bill he did a great job presenting just want to say that so I just say that as a courtesy. A could you touch on and I have not looked at this before and I understand or no opposition order talks about the the right the juvenile remaining extended foster care after reaching eighteen how is it different than what we've already had so there really is no impact in practice on this bill currently the language in the federal regulations and about how you can stand extended care at the age of twenty one differs from that and state statute which can cause confusion from time to time so we're trying to eliminate that confusion and does have the language line really they'll be no change in practice in terms of how you qualify for the extended care program okay thank. The other questions. One seven the nobody sent everybody here speak for or against it not center table for you you're recognized close the Bill. Question is closed. The motion do pass a second centers Johnson all in favor I. Post. Congratulations for your H. B. thirteen fifty eight past. We now have a thank the thirteen fifty nine six step for you are recognized to present house bill thirteen fifty nine deals with the bending the law concerning the release of confidential information under the child welfare agency last year. And again I'm gonna turn it over to Christian. Thank you house bill thirteen fifty nine lysis DCFS in that are supporting our foster parents by allowing certain information to be released to foster parents regarding children who were previously placed in their home and first such as information needed for tax filing purposes existing law only allows for this type of release information for children who are currently in the home so this legislation will give us the ability to provide limited information to foster parents who have a legitimate need for that information and as determined by the agency at once again there is no opposition to this bill as we work with stakeholders to develop it and we happy to answer any questions you may have. Your committee any questions of senator Johnson. So if they were in the home for ten months. The release of the information to allow them to consider that child as a dependent yes Sir pretty much that's what that's what this is for yes Sir I thank you. You said limited information what can be released and what's the safeguards I don't measures happen often often but that some. The various foster home and take that information use it for some other purposes what kind of safeguards that were built into sure and so the reason for this bill really was for the tax filing purposes and that we did write it a little more probably because and we knew that and child welfare sometimes some an interesting situations come up where it may be a legitimate needs so to answer your question the safeguards in place is that and there does need to be that legitimate need and it would be the agency who makes that determination to be the yes Sir is there anything outside of the tax filing purposes the recommended the request will be made to our foster care manager who would then make a recommendation to director Martin thank you to make sure. Okay any other questions committee. If not anybody here speak for or against. Anyone checked over you're recognized close the bill well these bills are so simple that's reason I like Christian explaining. So we are closed thank you senator will not do that meant the. She has been there for a good while and does a good job and she's a committee all in favor I. Post. Well take a motion. This country not not appear on to admire I have three motions that will take centre Johnson second centre Ballenger all in favor I. Post. Congratulations initiative will house bill thirteen fifty nine passed. Committee saying or the bills we