Judiciary Committee- House

He's a quorum members the first bill we're going to take up to date. We'll be helps bill ten oh four represented Fortner is here to percent this bill I'm going to let represent the Smith take the chair have a little practice so once you have a seat representing Fortner you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you madam chairman the members I'm back with by a child protection bill again it's And I want to thank you all for your input from when I was here before the suggestions you gave me and and I am committed and my amendment. We'll make this even better. Does anybody have any questions about it it's the same as it was except for the amendment. All right thank you Representative Fortner are there any questions from the committee. All right I don't see any. We let me look check and see if we have anyone to speak for against your bill. Is miss Carla Swanson. Since our. So miss Carla when you come to the table state your name who you work for and you may proceed. My name is Carla Swanson I represent the sex offenders that live in the State of Arkansas I work with an organization called Arkansas time after time. Thank you this. This bill still does not clarify exactly what is a water park is that means that families can't go to a fishing hole go fishing go to a pond go swimming. And in the center not necessarily public but I'm I'm from Russellville and every year they would have a gathering at a local. Pond like the sort of thing so that the kids could go trout fishing. With that stop the sex offender from taking his kids to something like that. I don't know. I just still think it's quite broad and only that but it also basically is punishing every single sex offender for one person's mistake. Which I don't think is right every single bill that I have to talk about is basically because one sex offender made a mistake and everybody else has to pay for that. Thank you are there any questions from the committee. All right seeing none thank you miss Swanson appreciate that. All right. I don't see any other guest here today to speak for against the bill a Jack skews me Representative Fortner Are there any committee members that have a question for represented Fortner. Okay I don't see any are you ready to close for your bill. I'm closed all right. I need a motion. Thank you a Representative Richmond do pass motion. All those in favor let it be known by saying aye. Any opposed same sign. There is none thank you represented Fortner you passed your bill thank you. All right members the next bill we're going to take up that has a physical impact on it is house bill ten sixty to represent the **** you're recognized to come forward. What you have a seat please identify yourself than five individuals you have with you and you will be. Ready to go to present your bill. Thank you madam chairman. Of. with me today I have Chris Walton the prosecuting attorney from the twenty second judicial district insulate County to my right my left is sleek county sheriff Rodney rye. A House bill of ten sixty two they brought this to me back during the summer talking about some of the problems we were having a concerning do you are. And anyway we've worked on this bill since mid summer and spoken to most organizations that we could we have found no opposition to this bill at all of the sheriff the Arkansas sheriff's association and the prosecuting attorneys all support this bill. Of with me saying that I would be a recognized to my right of. This Walton to speak on this bill a little bit. Good afternoon thank you for your time be sure to turn your. There you go thank you we have. You know that you have a problem when your deputies come up to you and start expressing concern about something like this an issue where you look back five years already that we got to check the record to see about a DD I could be enhanced and frequently the deputies would express problems regarding this well. It also you also realize you have a problem when you constituents come up to you and talk to you about. And what we had is an individual that had eleven data the eyes and we had tried this individual in a public trial add to a jury and it got a lot of press well this individual got another D. Debbie I and it was the front page of our local paper. And one of the problems we had is this time she had this person had eleven due to be eyes. And we can only charges person with a misdemeanor because of this look back period the five year look back period and when you have constituents asking you what you can't do more to a person that continues to break the law that's tough so we ended up all visiting about that is that what it did was it took a two pronged approach to. A two pronged approach to the problem first I want to check out our jurisdiction and see if it was more than just one individual that had that this impact. We had one individual will come individual one had eighteen D. W. eyes in twenty years at the derby I in plastic County we believe it was going to be a D. W. I. one misdemeanor. We had another individual claim individual number two ninety W. as in thirteen years. He was charged again with a misdemeanor it was is the FBI third offense because the other ones had rolled off with our short look back period. We had another individual number three five within ten years currently had one that currently headed D. Debbie I in garland county once again it was a misdemeanor. We had a. Individual number four we had a we had a we had a pending the Debbie I that individual at seven within the last six years in again it was a misdemeanor DWI that we were having a charge in the person also had to give you guys an Faulkner in Polk County. So what you see here is multiple offenses and also crossing over different jurisdictions. The next individual we found at head ninety to be Is within nineteen years. Two were pending in our county both of those we're gonna have to be misdemeanors. We had a another individual five the Debbie Is within fourteen years. If she gets one now it'll be a again a D. W. I. one just like her first offense for sentencing purposes. Then we had another individual six within the last thirteen years. After the person gets out of prison this time the next offense will be again another misdemeanor like a first offense. And then we had the individual that was in the paper that was that eleven D. W. eyes in again I'm having to charge for like a first of a first offender. Well after seeing that it's a problem in our jurisdiction after talking about different prosecutors about it another thing that I decided to do was to look at other states and there are currently four states with the short five year look back period. Mississippi is one of those states but Mississippi has a life long look back period for failing to get the eyes. Missouri has a. Missouri has a five year period but again it has a life long look back period for four or more due to the eyes and we're not asking for that we're asking to double it and that's it and then the last two states are Rhode Island Maryland so we are weaker on due to the I. sentencing. Then almost the entire country and so based on the examples that I've mentioned based on my talks with fellow prosecutors and with the sheriff's office we think it's the the time is right to double look back period in this particular statute thank you. Members any questions of this witness. Seeing no questions you can to can you thank you. I take that back representing castle you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair so. Are you making the distinction between misdemeanor DWI and felony DWI eyes or is it is just is just an extension of the look back period for five years to ten years regardless of misdemeanor felony no it would be at specifically if if you look at the bill the that there is a provision allows for a B. felony be charged that would go from ten to twenty years in the rest of it is just doubled five to ten and that would be all the misdemeanor DWI offenses. Representing berry you're recognized for a question. Thank members here is of is there any difference between all. Boating and. Just Drug Court driving intoxication there's no difference in it correct okay. But I don't know it thank you Mr Mr Mr. We know what we're not played with we we don't have a lot of lakes and selling County and that we don't have the Debbie I with the boating thank you thank you have we haven't Garland. What to know there's a difference. Ferguson you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair could you go back over it you said something of them look back here to twenty years for a felony of the felony or something like that G. we are Dublin it was ten years before before this and we're asking to be twenty years for a felony that's correct it was specifically that the B. felony provision at the end yes ten years for the misdemeanors that's correct Sir I think you meant you. Members any other questions representing guess what you're recognized for a question thank you manager is the Representative for mad here do we know if Matt has a position on this bill. the simple answer is no and I would be shocked if they would be against but I've had a couple organizations that supported the US but mad was not one of. Members any other questions. Mr right would you like to for deputy sheriff. Sure sure. November I'm here representing sure social Asian and and we strongly approve this and the again when I think Chris said it best when we're the one of the amounts to three or the full weakest states United States on the of the We're doing this to help the constituents in our area in your area. Representative Richardson you're recognized for a question thank you Medicaid the I know you guys said we were one of the third or fourth. Lois. And in terms of what how many do you was do we typically have you guys have an idea for the state on an annual basis. Not that I'm opposed to the bill I'm just curious to know that based. I think if you look at the I apologize if you look at the impact assessment it does go through the people that are incarcerated in in in in prison and you'll see that the numbers that they have now eleven. eleven inmates currently serving for a term of incarceration for a fourth offense. And then you look at fifth offense is to inmates in ten. for the B. felony now you know I'll pull the numbers in our jurisdiction and it's you know I I don't think that that would help you much but the scope. Of the number of that people and we just looked at one city and we had a twenty seven misdemeanor and I'll verify this is just a second we had a twenty seven misdemeanor trials pending but that's just in the city of Benton so you can imagine the numbers in the whole state how may there are a large number of due to any aspen you can see that the the ones. That are being sent to print present a number of people in prisons is is actually. Minimal But the numbers listed that rope and the and that the impact reports. Members of I can draw your attention to if you're looking at the bill online or on the device if you go to the bill you'll see the impact statement. And that may help answer some questions with the sheriff was referring to. Are there. The Bill. If you look if you look at your impact statement with the sheriff was referring to. Talks about the ADC has eleven inmates currently serving in time with incarceration for violation of 5-65-118 to with those inmates are serving a sentence of it breaks all of the day on it gives you an idea what is in our prison system currently. And that may help answer a few questions. I know we all have to kind of get used to looking at impact statements in a different way from what we're. Normally doing that you'll see that for a three year period beginning in January of two thousand seventeen ended in December thirty first two thousand nineteen there one thousand seven hundred and fifty seven misdemeanor convictions one hundred and forty eight conditions up for the fourth offense thirty two can vent can big chins for the fifth offense in fifty nine convicts tions for the six the fence. So I think the impact statement is very helpful if you want to take a look at that. Yeah that that number was listed there at the very top and I I should I should cop and apologize but that one thousand seventy seven misdemeanor convictions gives you some kind of a. What we are looking at that I have Representative Ferguson in the queue represented Ferguson will be recognized for a question. Thank you manager just a quick question for clarification. and I realize this bill is the critically just the state of Arkansas with the if you have a situation where an individual Hey eighty W.. In another state Missouri Texas to a three how does this law affected being appointed law enforcement certainly you guys could see that this individual had three TD of three D. W. assets of the state and he or she is get one here and see Arkansas that you'd be able to look back and see that another state so. Is it is this something that a law enforcement agency may apply this law and say you get three in another state you get one here but yet three another state so we don't ask them. Yes Sir you can you can go and get out as long as you can get the proper evidenced introducing court you can use those convictions here in Arkansas as well as long as a and that there's there's no change in the law there I mean that's the way the law works now this building change that into something that looked back or thank you manager. Represented Crawford you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair Mine goes off a little bit but has a law enforcement. Do you think that we need something like we have for the drug courts to be able to help the people that are continually getting D. W. eyes evidently there's a mental health problem or just problems in general. What we've we've run a DWI court we these individuals have to say classes you know the courts encourage him at you know it you people spend a lot of time what we want people to get better I don't want to be due to be I two three four I mean I used to be defense attorney and I represent people that I talked to my office begging to go to a. Yep hi the courts telling you to go the to these classes she gotta do these classes you're gonna get in trouble I mean. The problem is there are certain individuals. That you provide that to. In. They don't change their behavior and those are the people that are eight and eight continue to drive on the streets and put our citizens at risk and. Those are the people that we have to be able to punish better okay follow up. You're recognized for a follow up and I understand that and I'm not. I'm not advocating for them other than the fact that I see a problem. In our prison system recidivism rates I'm just saying is there a direction we can go to look at that but in in in in that that is how the criminal justice system does look I've got a brother that's an attic I hate it it's tough we can't fix them. The biggest differences thank goodness he does this stuff at home it and not on the streets but other people at risk and I know it doesn't know what the bill I just asked that no ma'am I appreciate that thank you. Represent Gazaway you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair. Just to kind of think about how this would work in practice. when I ask a question and get your feedback on it. So D. W. R. one happens and you're one for instance. typically there's. No jail time associated with the W. one maybe one day some find some classes. Let's say data yet to happens in your five. Or your six which currently would have dropped off in would be a new D. W. one. Of it now it's going to be D. W. I. to which is typically a minimum of seven days and can be longer than that. And let's say ten years later after D. W. one. The person gets another DWI and my recollection is on the W. three the minimum is typically ninety days in jail and course the W. four becomes a felony. And. It is that how you see that working in practice that even ten years later after someone gets their first date API if ten years later related incident one intervening at some point they get that thirty to be either looking at a minimum of ninety days in jail personnel public services not is another option there so many hours of public service sometimes you see that the most the time on the W. three I think you're looking about a minimum of ninety days in jail and that would be something that happened ten years separated from the first one is that kind of how you guys would see that working in practice well I I think that prosecutor has tremendous discretion and you know I'm not. You know first there's so many factors when you look at how you gonna punish the W.. You know if they might be a first offense but let's say that you had at the person there is a point three as a point as a pup as opposed to point oh wait. that's a different type of case somebody had had to do to be on ten years and is point oh eight is is a lot different than somebody they got one and then had another one pending and then got one so I yes I think prosecutors all the time and decide how they're going to charge and how they're going to punish and certainly the the court takes those things into consideration I just. Right now the law is weak and we can't deal with them. Multiple offender data B. I. individuals that you know it let's say they stay in jail for you know year in integrative case. Those all the Debbie I start falling off and they go out and do it again this is a get out and the DWS falling off. We are limited in our ability to punish and I I'd that is my biggest concern eight we have. Discretion and I think in the cases that you're pointing out I think those are great cases for prosecutors to make the your user discretion and to not punished to the full extent of the law. Well what you're recognized for a follow up will and with all due respect and in my experience D. W. eyes one of the areas where prosecutors actually don't have any discretion you can't dismiss the DWI like you can dismiss murder can't dismiss DWI prosecutor has no discretion and it again on the W. three my understanding is the minimum by law is ninety days in jail that's not discretionary. And so again you would be looking at an instance where someone have the W. one and your one they get the W. three in your ten and they're going to spend a minimum of ninety days in jail now there is some discretion about so many hours of public service which can stand in lieu of the jail time I know this I mean I was a deputy for nine years I've been through this a few times. So I'm in I'm in again but with all due respect I think I would disagree in that regard not necessarily pose what you're trying to do here but I think you know we need to think through how this would work in practice and so you know if you have any comments you'd like to address that and I'd be happy to hear I think that we don't have the discretion to not prosecute these that being said. The state does stand up and rest when there's bad evidence and and we have discretion on how to charge I think that we do and that's I guess that's where. You know we can't drop it. But we can sure use our discretion how we charge it. And that's my opinion on it. Represent flowers recognized for a question thank you madam chair you were just referencing prosecutorial discretion and And I'm not an attorney so I'm wondering. You know how that works in determining whether or not to prosecute a given DWI as a misdemeanor versus a felony if you could kind of been like miss on that and then I'm also wondering. Will open the account if I can ask you that first sure eight generally speaking if I get a for if I got a full if I have FOR D. W. eyes within the. At night it almost every time in five four year forty Debbie eyes within the look back period I'm charging is a felony I consider that person for the FBI's within five years. You know I mean how many times do you get it it's just. To me that is very egregious and therefore I I do charge that is a felony you know I I think most the prosecutors would be the same. Follow up and fair you're recognized for a follow up. I guess it I'm I'm wondering does discretion afford you the opportunity to. prosecute someone. Especially. Did you give in whether or not someone was hurt or how many other people were involved in that kind of thing because your email reading off the number of people on the number of circumstances are cases where they were fifteen you know in any given period but let's say that happened over a span of fifty I guess fifteen years you know I don't know I don't know how all that fleshed out because you're going to great detail and for me to understand how the current law doesn't work to allow you to use your discretion. but I guess I'm wondering for someone who might have committed. Two for the first time you know there were several cars involved where somebody got hurt or there might be for but it do you have the discretion. For less than four to charge it as a felony. Under the current law. In my opinion those get sometimes they get played down depending on the situation of the the of the case you always go look at your evidence to an and I would want to make one clarification is somebody's hurt as opposed to it you know because of a DWI or killed because of a D. W. I. those are different offenses. So that would be if someone's killed it's a negligent homicide and B. felony if someone is injured that's different so eight U. we charge that is a battery typically but to. We have in my opinion the law is not changing from what you're saying you discretion aspect of it is still there We're just wanting to give us a stronger ability of a better ability to go back after people that are in our opinion repeat offenders that were unable to deal with now one more follower manager please you're recognized for more. in the only thing that I'm ever concerned about and and I would like to sort of pick you back my remarks on the line of questioning the Representative Crawford made and because you mentioned. That there are people who you know even in the case of your your relative. Who might have an addiction but they. Stay home right and they're not involving other people or people might be in fact. Encouraged to get help or to stay at home. If they know that you know what the law is and how the law could impact them. I'm just concerned that if we if we. St the law in that regard when there's already prosecutorial discretion maybe because you said in my opinion which to me sounds like there's some. Discretion there where a prosecutor could utilize the felony as it stands now I'm just I'm just wondering if there is a need to address those egregious cases that you mention for fifteen because what about you know who bit you will offenders and I mean I'm just throwing that out as someone who's a non lawyer. What are there already tools where those situations could be addressed without stretching this so that some people get the benefit of prosecutorial discretion while others don't well thank you yep. At first I would say that you know there's no official. status with these that and that's part of our problem. What we can't. We can't punish those people that are repeat offenders. Like. My constituents feel. We ought to and frankly like I feel it. You know this is the sum. Right now. And at the number of cases that I mentioned just you know me going through my office I'm not convinced I have all of them. But. We were expanding on that the higher end of it for what I would consider that the most egregious offenders. And The largest limits is too much now. The way I feel thank you. And you know and and again we're. We've got a couple of the guys in the prosecuting attorney's association back here. And the the sheriff's association date law you know there's there's broad support for that. Members any other questions. The represented person. The manager yes yes yes one more question was I want to I heard something in your response to Representative Gazaway and I want to go back to my original question about an individual who may have a three oh FOR D. W. state so they've had three the W. S. let's say in the state of Texas will Illinois and then they have one here three eight years ago then they have one here that's the fourth one under this law a prosecuted his or her discretion could decide to charge that individual with a felony if we're able to prove those data gas yeah we go back yet we have to go back and get the records and frequently that's difficult I don't think all the have you guys for get entered like they should I don't think all the sentencing orders get entered like they should. But but if you think she'll sure yes I Rison at the three W. as long years ago in another state in hip one. Here eight years ago had three another state that prosecutors could charge him with a felony correct yes Sir okay thank you thank you for. Represent is like you're recognized for a question thank you madam chair of. Sir will what does this rounding states waters there limits on. Hi if you look at Alabama they have it two eighteen year. Well let's go to a bear with per se let's let's go to. we'll we'll start with the Mississippi is a five year look back period for the misdemeanors a lifetime look back for felonies Missouri is just five years. Chessie is ten year look back period. Oklahoma is a ten year look back period so we would be making ourselves back consistent. With those states and that Texas. Is a lifetime look back for everything brewed with the yes. The full manager you're recognized hello if my memory correction the of. When we as law enforcement officer we do standardized field sobriety testing be a city reasonable calls for the stop in when we go to get in to that the the police were prosecuted with the evidence shown be guilty at their provided that number one with the of the alcohol counselor at the time of we still continue that pressed that were they have alcohol counseling at beginning at number one with Act alcohol safety classes in the and. That that they have to participate in it and now I will tell you. Yes is a simple answer thank you no more questions manager. Members any other questions. Seeing none we have no one who is signed up to speak against the bill the two individuals who signed up for sitting before us so Representative Fite you're recognized close for your bill. Push your button. I should know that should not. Wells number slower learners and others. All right against this bill only changes two things and it's the look back period from five to ten after five DO you Isaac goes to the six when you go to your doublet from ten to twenty. If someone's been called that many times how many times. Not been call. you know I've I've I've heard a lot here today but I know as a parent in his or her grandparents a two lane road my kids coming home at night I can't tell you how many times when they're late I worried about him so I think it's with no one here to to speak against this bill are perceived as a good bill the men and women the with the sheriff represents who are on the roads today and doing the resting and the prosecuting the men and women to the prosecuting they're firmly behind this bill so I would. Members represent a five is closed for his bill what is the pleasure of the Committee. We have a motion to do pass is there any discussion on the motion to do pass. All in favor of the motion please say aye. Any opposed motion carries congratulations you've passed your bill. All right members we have we're going to turn our attention now to House Bill twelve seventy six represented under would. You are recognized. Thank you manager may I have my guests adjournment to certain. The manager at the first Committee that's an arson on the side of the table read on the front row working CNN you every day House can I give a brief introduction on the on the bill and then I'll let my guests and introduce themselves and probably you can give a better explanation of the bill and the number I public good this legislation is proposed to me that Arkansas sending sentencing commission basically what it does it clarifies the all commensurate convictions in order to that a syncing are included within the scoring criminal history so under current law there's ambiguity regarding whether to give criminal history points of an offense for which a sentence it was entered between the date of the fence on the date of the sentenced for being the fence being stored so. An example is that sentence seems confusing to read it several times if somebody committed a residential burglary in plastic County and then the following week one weekend they were arrested for possession after drugs that person pleads guilty to possession the drug charge and in two weeks later their sentence for a residential burglary charge under current law it is unclear whether it is proper to assign criminal history points to the drug truck conviction when calculating the residential burglary convictions so um this would simply clarify the loss that everybody in the states calculating the criminal history of the same way I know I probably concluded that some but GS clear by the light. If you would like to speak just press the button and then you can state your it's a law that has to be read instead agree but once it turns red please state your name for the record you may begin hi my name's Tony Rollin attorney for the sentencing commission and I think that Representative under what covered it really well I think the only important thing to add is that this legislation was voted on and approved by the entire sentencing commission which is comprised of three judges two prosecutors two defense attorneys to citizen representatives so this has been kind of batted really well there's no known opposition and that's really all I have I think. Members are there any questions okay you're recognized I'm sorry I didn't mean to slight you there. My name's Daniel shoe I'm prosecuting attorney in Sebastian County but I'm also on the sentencing commission and just as she stated there's three judges two prosecutors two defense attorneys to citizens we voted unanimously to do this my undergraduate degree was in accounting and this is really a records bill is to keep the correct records how you should count things because that's critical to the sentencing commission is the records and how things are counted the guts of it if you will is on line thirty four thirty five when it defines records that all the following or injured up to the date of the sentencing for the offense that was the. Candidly most people were doing it that way the federal sentencing guidelines of that way other states so that way we just wanted to bring Arkansas back to that and as Tony's has told you we voted unanimously that it should be done this way. I'll be happy to answer questions. Members are there any questions. Seeing no questions we have no one who is signed up to speak against the bill represented under what you're recognized close for your bill. Well thank you ready and I am close for a bill in the I make a motion to pass thank you. 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 motion carries congratulations you've passed your first bill. Thank members I believe that takes care of our. Agenda for today now Tuesday. Hello hang with me just a minute I'll give you our list. Thank on. To many pieces of paper up here but I want to give you some reading material for the weekend. We're going to have a fairly. We're gonna have a fairly heavy agenda for Tuesday. So looking at March the second. We're going to have house bill twelve oh four. House Bill twelve thirteen. House Bill twelve twenty five. House Bill twelve fifty six. House Bill fourteen twenty five House Bill fourteen thirty seven. I think I've listed all of them I will certainly text you sometime during the weekend make sure you have an accurate one so that we can all have an opportunity to review those.