Judiciary Committee - Senate

The chair sees a quorum. If we can get through this agenda today of. Represented makes House Bill Levin fifty nine looks like it's not controversial mark correct and we tried to take House members for sure we can as a courtesy so if you and. Senator Johnson going to present with you. Your like to come to the table. House willow fifty nine that would managing be at the back of your. Back in. Russian makes your recognized resent your bill thank you Mr so colleagues a this bill does two simple things is actually a Joint effort between myself and senator Johnson it goes back to an ALC meeting we're both talking about doing jury bill is jury duty bills instead of doing separate bills we top our heads together came up with the the bill you have in front of us the first part of the of the bill came about because of the experience I had back in twenty fifteen back in twenty fifteen in January right as the session started I got a summons for jury duty thankfully the judge dismissed me from that because my legislative responsibilities but it brought the question what if there was a judge to for political or personal reasons did not want to give the member that thank exemption if you will and want to try to force them to to serve on the jury and you know you start getting into a potentially a constitutional issue where you as a lawmaker having to decide between representing your constituents are doing your civic duty in serving on a on a jury so what the first part of the bill does And this is actually based on language that was brought to us by the administrative officer of the court is that allows lawmakers when we are in session special session extraordinary session fiscal session that allows us the opportunity to to for jury duty until after our legislative duties are over so as not to get out of jury duty card by any means it just allows us to defer that service until after our time is up here if we choose to if we want to take a break from from session and now we can survive you know want to serve on a jury you can you can do that but otherwise it just gives you the opportunity to deferred that service until following session all the other section as a service section that senator Johnson proposed and what that does is it allows anybody for over the age of eighty to opt out of jury duty for or any reason we all understand that with the frailties of age that serving this compassionate could create and. DO hardship for both the individual and their caretakers and so this just allows if they choose for someone over the age of eighty to opt out of jury duty so that's of the two things that the bill does gives us the opportunity to the for Wilmar session and allows those over eighty to opt out and with that or open any questions. Questions from the committee. Seeing no questions from the committee is or. No one signed up to speak for against no one from the public to speak for against of. This is a Russian to makes would you like close your bill I am closed and would appreciate a favorable consideration. Committee. To pass from Senator Rice second from center Ballenger any discussion saying none all for the motion certain public saying aye. All against. Motion passed congratulations represented makes introduction of pastor bill. On a. Senator hammer has asked us to pass over it SP three oh wait till next week so you all can move that out of your way. R. S. B. three eleven centre Tucker Tucker. Senator Tucker you are were recognized presenter bill and if the gentleman that are there with you to help will of the. Thank you Mr chair recognize those holes yes Sir this is the department of corrections bills and so we've got some folks infirmity sees all sector gravestone entities yourselves of sectors Solomon graves department corrections. Director Jerry bright child division of community corrections. Sturch Tucker thank you Mister chair as I mentioned this is a department corrections bill you may remember at four twenty three from four years ago and this just makes a couple of very slight adjustments tax for twenty three if you remember how we created programs for people to be referred to in the department of community corrections if they committed to what we call either a serious violation or technical violation serious violation being if they committed a non violent non sexual misdemeanor technical being if they violated some term of their probation or parole so the two changes that we're making here is one. if someone is absconding from their parole officer for a period of less than six months we're keeping that as a technical violation but the idea is if they've been absconding for more than six months then that's more than just a mere technical violations so moving that to a a serious violation and then the second thing is. The programs that these folks were committed to an apartment community correction we put a certain number of days in the legislation and when we pass the bill we actually doubled the number of days that we intended folks to stay for so the Department could use that as an incentive for good time to get folks to behave well while they were in the program and after managing that program for about three and a half years or so almost four years the department wants to just make some slight adjustments to that day's given that the experience that they have so that's really it and now what a Mister Bradshaw and secretary graves AT and with whatever they want. Do you all want to chime in or do you want to just wait for questions of ms Mr Caroline deferred to the Committee for any questions questions from the committee. The chair sees no questions from the NO center us. Thank you Mr I'm looking forward and. Don't have the. Where with all to to understand possibilities is much as I'd like but when you say that you're going to extend this condo in the six months from. What now so the way the way the language currently reads absconding Peary it is treated the same. whether you are absent in yourself from supervision for a period of thirty days because you out with your buddies and the offender made a mistake and and smoke something he should not smoke and he knows he's gonna pop pot on the drug this. We treat we're treating that person the same under this language as we would somebody who is gone for eighteen months when we started ten years ago working our way through implementing best practices within our the was parole and probation super supervision unit one of the first things that the consultants we are brought in at various iterations kept reinforcing two was is that sanctions should be proportional to the violation. And that over sanctioning someone actually creates a worst product then you started off with so what we're doing here is saying those short term violators who just need to Hey you need to wake up quit being stupid let's interrupt that behavior before progresses to something serious this amendment will allow us to treat them at that lower level with sanctions that are more in line with what they're actually doing as opposed to those who are gone for six nine months or more. And I appreciate that and I know I'm guessing this is revenue. Some by percentages for buying corporation by the way you do on the system mmhm how the what will will understand you can you have people that don't have a regimented life. Understandable. That are going to miss that bill that I wouldn't dare me in my mind. But there are no sanctions before six month note there are okay there are that's what I would be a lot closer to yeah do it we have a a what we call an offender by ladies sing guide which provides a range of saying Shinn's broken down for low level sanctions medium and high level violations low level sayings. Shinn's could be additional reporting could be an electronic monitor could be group sessions could be a shorter term jail day of one or two days day and and and your county detention facility this is one step in a larger pair dom of the enemy to saying tions the director Brad Shaw and his team can employ it as low as it as long as the lower sanctions you know are being utilized and under steps yes Sir that our helpline yes Sir thank you Mister project Quercus Senator Rice it's in the legislation to the for that lower level the technical violation you can be some sense to a program of up to sixty days confinement so that's that's in the bill to. Other questions from the committee. Same none is there anyone to speak for or against the bill. We have no one signed up and I don't see anyone of the sector Tucker would you like to close for your bill I'm close for bill Mister chairman I appreciate a good vote. Committee. Motion to pass for centre Johnson second from center Ballenger any discussion see none all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed motion carried congratulations centre Tucker your pastor bill thank you Mr thank you members the committee. We will now take up Senate bill three oh six. Of. Senator Rice I don't remember what time you told me you needed to leave but you're as senior member. Of the when I ask you to take the chair. Senior member present unless you texture. Senator Clark you are recognized Senate three OO six. Thank you Mr. Once again of one of my one page bills. The a very simple bill of. A permits a concealed handgun licensee to consider a concealed handgun in a news municipally owned or maintained park and the exceptions that it allows. The board for does not allow you to carry is of football field baseball field soccer field or other sports field or an athletic event or practice is occurring at the time of the was it allows it in a city park I'll be happy to take any questions. Senator Johnson you're recognized for a question. Is there any known opposition municipally we worked with them on this Municipal League is not opposed of I did get a call not call I got an email from the Of the directors of conventions. Association of with the phone number and I sent them back my phone number. Of and sent their letter which didn't change things that they'd like to talk two proponents of the bill but I never heard from them of the if they have a problem with a been glad to to deal with it but again they they haven't called so. but other than that no. Thank you chairman. I have a question. Centerfire you're recognized for a question. Is there a provision in the law that excludes a. The concealed carry license see now from Going. Tark when this bull shark. From carrying their weapon. A boot I have to have someone who's going to vote for the bill that may be able to answer that question I miss. I'm assuming yes of. Are we wouldn't be run in the bill but with bill as somebody who definitely knows the answer the question. But near the sponsor and you don't know. I think or answer the questions and the flowers. I'm just trying to see if you are saying and yes you do not know R. yes you do not work and. And I. It's a. Certifiers and already answered it if you will answer that question Senator flyers if you will ask question in Palos asked him a question to providers yes. Give him time he is he said he had the entered. More light one more time. So is there a vision in the law that prohibits. What you are calling for in this bill now. Senator flowers I said I believe so. But or I wouldn't be running the bill but I have a witness who can tell us specifically for sure. I don't know thank you. Are there any other questions from committee. Okay did you Senator Clark. Witnesses you're going to call up. Yes the we're showing signed up for. is Joel. Edwards yes and I hope you can answer that question okay ms read you've come up. Being set aside their either side in the table the Bill mock you can. Reach if you will identify yourself and who you're with. And you're recognized speak. My name is Joel Edwards I'm not sure that I'm with anyone I'm a concealed carry instructor and I'm here to speak specifically as it relates to this bill again as it relates to concealed carry instructor and conceal carry holders would you like me to answer the question for sure would you okay you know you will pull your mac is a principal there you go thank you. The Committee on okay now. So eight is against the law in the state of Arkansas to carry and a municipal owned or maintained recreational facility and so that is the reason why this bill exists. And then I'd like to go ahead and and talk about this bill for a second as a concealed carry instructor one of the main things that my students are concerned with is where those places I can carry where those places I can't carry. I don't always necessarily agree with those but they're frequently consistent so if I'm used to saying if the government owns that building you can't go in there it doesn't matter if it's a federal building a state building a county building or city building that's off limits the business puts up a sign that says you can't go in there you can't go in there. And I usually get to this point the class and then I say but in as an instructor that's never a good thing And we start talking about recreational facilities and I start with federal there's a federal law that was a bipartisan bill passed by president Obama signed by president Obama that allows concealed carry holders to carry in federal parks in any national park in the country that allows concealed carry holders in that state they can carry in that park so in Arkansas that's hot springs park that's buffalo national river that's P. region others concealed carry holders with Arkansas concealed carry whole licenses can carry in those parks I explain you can't care in the buildings and I transition in the state. Talk about how state park you can carry on those trails in in those parks with that said devils Dan or Matt Nebo or petty Jean all the State Parks replaces its conceal carry holders we can carry but then when we get to cities we have to stop and go but you can't carry their. My students immediately pick this up is why why is it that I can carry on a trail that's a national trails stay true but I can't carry on a city trail walk in a car and national park in state permit but not a city park is not consistent and it's a consistency that they pick up on in Northwest Arkansas where I'm from this is incredibly important because of the expansion of trails Bentonville announces last week that three point two million people are on their trail system in twenty twenty on these are all places where concealed carry holders in Arkansas cannot carry this bill three oh six brings clarity and consistency to prohibit places in the state of Arkansas based on the purpose if the purpose of that places a trailer park a recreational facility denies in Arkansas concealed carry holder can carry it that whether it's federal whether it's state or whether it's local. It's not any kind of radical expansion is simply bringing consistency and clarity are prohibited places in the state of Arkansas if anybody has any specific questions about anything I mentioned are prohibited places in general I'd be more than happy to take your questions and I appreciate your time today. Question for the committee. Would you. Relate the difference between as you mentioned concealed carry. Holders and what is understood is constitutional carry. in in that's a great question so the way this bill was specifically written was for concealed carry holders it is not uncommon on. And it was free for is that it's not dissimilar to the bills that have been ran in the past related to allowing you to carry on publicly owned parking lots or your employer's parking lot they all require currently a concealed carry permit that is not the case across the board but the majority those specifically enumerated requires a concealed carry permit so the way this bill as currently written open carry and constitutional carry as we know in the state of Arkansas in other words legally carrying a handgun without an Arkansas concealed carry or another state's concealed carry license would not be prohibited would not be allowed I'm sorry in a city park or other recreational facility. The goal this this would need to be amended to remove a concealed Kerry license wording specifically from the bill to allow constitutional Kerry's words open carry on those facilities. Okay any questions from committee. Senator Clark. No I was just gonna say it of. We are only it's not one three one or the other about whether you should have to have a concealed Kerry license which I don't to carry in a municipal park it's making the law consistent with national parks and state parks to my wants to go further than that I'd probably vote for it but. K. Singh no other question for that so witness we will dismiss you are there any is there anybody here speak against. It's not that we have Allie brown signed the. Brown if you will identify yourself and who you're with you're recognized speak. Thank you Mr chairman I and my name is Allie brown I am your Arkansas state director for to a women and I am also the wife of Cleburne county sheriff Chris Brown but today I'm actually here to testify this bill for this bill because of my most important title and that is the title of mom I have four young daughters two of them are here with me today and it is my responsibility as a parent to provide to protect and to keep them safe. At it is my belief that that is not a responsibility that falls to the state or to the city or to law enforcement that falls to me and it is necessary that I have the tools that I need to keep them safe behalf of two women I would like to say that we are excited to support this bill it is it is not an end all be all we believe that every. A law abiding citizen in the state of Arkansas and in the United States of America has the right to to carry their firearms wherever whenever and however they seem they deem fit to protect their lives and the lives of third their children and loved ones so this is not an end all be all bill this is certainly not the end of the fight for us but we do believe it is a small step in the right direction and that is why we are proud to support it we are thankful for senator for senator Clark bringing this bill here today and so that's on behalf of to a women you know my parents grew up in a in a world in a society where. Of unlocked doors of car windows that were left roll down on the grocery store parking lot without incident at the community as a as a whole is was really largely responsible for watching out for all of the children and for that reason they were left to kind of roam free I grew up in a different generation in a different world I am the same ages Morgan Nick. And I remember well that summer night in nineteen ninety five when she is was adopted and it it changed the lives of all small town rural our Kansans at that time in our parents were forced to adjust they were their eyes were opened when those unthinkable crimes from the big cities made their way to small town Arkansas they had to make adjustments to keep their children safe they no longer drop to my brother and I off at the city park to play unsupervised while they went grocery shopping things that my generation of moms would even consider because since that time our world has become increasingly more violent and dangerous I am now a mother to a new generation and we are facing things I'm really unseen before the internet stalking human trafficking and as the wife of a law enforcement officer for the last thirteen years I have watched firsthand as the calls for missing and abducted children has continued to climb these are things that moms my age are a really in tune with we are watching and because of that my husband is also a law enforcement firearms instructor he is a concealed carry permit instructor and we have watched firsthand as moms have just really wind up in droves to purchase firearms to take a handgun classes in order to be proficient with those firearms in order to protect their children and yet we are stuck in a place where even when we jump through those hoops and do those things and become legally licensed in the state of Arkansas though we don't need it then we are told we cannot Kerry and the smallest city park to watch her children swing on a swing set and to me that is just it's not acceptable. And so that's why I am here today to just speak for this bill and to ask that you would keep that in mind this is at the time at the moment this bill is for concealed carry permit holders these are law abiding citizens who have passed a federal background check who are who have taken a class who have been certified with their firearms that's what we're discussing here today and so with that in mind I would just ask that you pass this bill on through the committee here and see it all the way to the governor's desk and I do appreciate your time thank you. Thank you ms brown the members have questions for ms brown. A saying none. That's all we have signed up your dismiss this brown thank you. And Senator Clark would you like to close for your bill yes this not that but on the need to say much but I would like to sign. That. I appreciate of Mister Edward bringing me of this bill. The I was not aware of the problem. And. He talked about the trails in northwest Arkansas you know and I live in an area where we're very blessed of weekend just anytime we want to go up to the national park and just we take that for granted in this way and go hawks those trails we have like wash it to all state parkway what Catherine state park we have like the great State Park and what we can go hike those trails but the city of hot springs has put in some really. Neat trails of you don't know about they go through the city and other places and both on the court record and now I represent of one of those areas and some of them go through some some bad neighborhoods and that's a good thing it's a good thing that were put in trials of not just through high end neighbourhoods but but through poor places in places that have problems but as we do that we also need to recognize that there is a need to protect yourself but not I have a female relative the that hikes hundreds of miles a year if not thousands that lot of times that I think you know a little concerned about of because you never know who you'll meet out there and the I will hard to be able to be of armed for ever she is and so I said I know all that was unnecessary but there's a real reason for us to do this and to go further but I appreciate a good vote. Is there a motion I'll make a motion to pass Senator Clark center flyers if you will be on screen and I'd ask for a roll call vote. You're recognized the I have a motion on the floor and second. I have a second Senator Ballenger all in favor I. Opposed no roll call Roco. Senator Hendren. Senator Hendren. Senator Stubblefield Senator Stubblefield. Senator Johnson. Senator Johnson vote CS senator garner. Senator garner votes yes senator Ballenger. Senator Ballenger votes yes Is Senator flowers though Senator flowers votes knows Senator Clark. Senator Clark both the. Senator Clark your bill passes five to one. Thank you Mr chair thank you Committee. And the time winding up of setting a percent Clark I will detail miss brown I compliment you on your well behaved children I know this is not the most fun place that they could be but I have they have been very well thank you. Senator Garner you ready to present. This B. twenty eight no Sir I will skip over that one is B. one seventy yes Sir I'll do that when I re read the members as the one seventy. Give everybody a moment to pull that up yes Sir. Senator Garner you're recognized present your bill yes Sir this is the doxing bill that we worked on and talked about a week or two ago and what I did was do a pretty extensive amendment two and have engrossed it's pretty much new bill but I'll tell kind of taking the guidance from this committee and submit things to talk about tell you kind of distinctions we have now my name to doxing kind of put that official term lexicon even distinguish it from cyber bullying there's question about how what working should be use for to communication what I did was take the current cyberbullying law which has been on the books since at least two thousand twelve take their definition of communication and put it in as this so you see there's a much broader definition which mayor is that cyber bullying Law distinction between IT and cyber bullying has to do with the person who the minor that you're doing it against has the reasonable feel fear of physical injury especially distinction line between somebody cyber bulling which is a Class B. misdemeanor and now which is doxing which is the in the reasonable fear of that minor also this clues just minors pharmacists are billing which is more expensive if you look as well four there was a tier approach to the punishment going by how bad of the form the person had so it's a Class B. felony if the death of the minor Kerr say they commit suicide or monetary loss of over a million dollars classy and physical injury or curse of the minor or monetary losses due to ten thousand to a million dollars Class D. if the monetary loss it to a minor is five hundred to a thousand or ten thousand and everything else would be considered a class A. misdemeanor the way I see this working really is the vast majority time shall have that class A. misdemeanor issues a little bit more severest form a cyber bullying because the person who is the intent of the target knows about and has a reasonable fear which is a pretty distinguishable factor in the law so with that being said I'll take any questions on the bill. And the amendment. Questions from the committee. Same none is of we have. Folks on the boat Mr Rosenzweig frozen's works on up to date yes the bill. You can stay there Senator Garner you can Senate side. Mr rose five unit apartment so for the record are Jefferson five Arkansas association of criminal defense lawyers and I appreciate the changes that senator garner has made however US I still think there are some serious problems with it with the bill if I could to call your attention to it on line twenty seven of the first page it talks about post publishes private or identifying information or identifying the words the information can be something that is completely in the public domain it's not that is not necessarily so security numbers or driver's license numbers or anything are going to be something that is totally public and so that is a problem second on line twenty eight of the word malicious is not defined and all right I think it has a a serious vagueness problem of and then on line thirty four it talks about the person knowingly DOCSIS or transmit so after defining DOCSIS it's if you don't even have to docks it can be transmit or send and then I think there's a vagueness problem on the lines of five and nine Page two when if ever uses the phrase due to is that Clause causes or is it something other than causes you know causes is is we're dealing with the criminal statute here and causes has a specific definition within the. Criminal code due to does not necessarily and so are we are are we dealing with because are we dealing with something other and I think the of the act those are the problems and in addition to just sort of the General of first amendment problem that one going to have and then the course there's the policy question is that nine times out of ten I think the people who are doing these who are committing these this offense are going to be minors themselves this is the type of thing that generally is going to be long are presumably your your high school or age student and you really gonna office saddle these people with with felony records over something like that so I think there's some serious problems of vagueness and with the law it needs to be tightened up in a minute and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Questions from the committee. Sir Ballinger. Thank you Mister you you sent me back to try to do some research and think back to law school but wishes the specific mental state the men's right. It is I mean is in that in that used it on on a regular basis and I also know that the the met the mental states in the state in the statute or purpose knowing reckless and negligent malicious is not a mental state on the Arkansas okay so so and I I was so when we went to the uniform mental states that has as much as as being used in the past right well I mean they're a malicious the problem is malicious is not currently defined in the code okay in the code and and at the at the very least you need to have a definition of malicious in their their you know their definitions of purpose this is what purpose means just what reckless meets wishes need to say it is to have a you know and intent to commit a purpose to commit an offense or it has board has a word for has some other the problem is of course you have you have an undefined term and whenever you have an undefined terms you're going to have problems. Thank you. Other questions from the committee. Mr what Rosenzweig. Are almost always of. I appreciate a. Your testimony here and your point of view I think it it helps us and licenses a lot. But if I came to you you know I looked at the lan twelve twenty seven twenty eight here on page one if I came to you. With a. Whether it be. Will there be this or something else. And we're talking about going to a prosecutor in. Some people with the prosecutor but I'm talking talk about going to you. Would you not tell me that one the problems that we had would be proven that it was malicious. well and that the state with course the prosecutor would have the burden of proof in it the problem is is what is what is the definition of malicious another words now obviously there are certain things that everyone knows are you know are malicious I mean if you're looking to kill someone for no reason that's quarterly or be malicious but is you know is toilet papering someone's yard malicious the proper the problem is is that when something's in the eye of the of the beholder and doesn't have a a definition that prosecutors judges juries and defendants and defense lawyers can hook onto its it's that's you're going to it's going to cause of Vegas from an inconsistent application and that this act you can solve that problem I have with that particular problem if you're going to use the word malicious having a definition of the word so everyone knows what it means and what it doesn't. Good point. Ballinger. I mean essentially that's what that's what grabs my attention as you you chose a word that is really commonly used not only in the code because I did did a quick search but also in our courts I mean everyone knows about malicious prosecution right but the courts to deal with what is militia all the time I mean I I feel so the other things I I'd get it there's no bill with perfect and and there may be other arguments but to meet up to argue that a phrase that is so common we utilized over and over and over again in our courts in our code is made it what it does is because I I agree with with Senator Clark that you usually come and bring it a perspective that we need to hear right in a lot of times it's easy to pick on the bad guy in and run over people's constitutional rights and and so it it is good that you're here but then when you pick a phrase like like malicious and say that it's it's ambiguous it may be but it's it is utilized over and over again the courts find ways to get it done the flight the reasonable person standard like a lot of other things so I I mean it it seems like that is a it it seems like it's a bit of a. A kind of a bad argument to make that that case when I have no doubt that that a court can handle here just like they do in every other instance okay R. if I could to respond that briefly of the problem of course you you referred to places like malicious prosecution where something issues well that's in the civil context of lawsuits for damages for attempting to frame someone here what we're doing is adding something to the criminal code and prince and for instance there many places where the criminal definition of something is different from the civil definition person's negligence as a civil definition there's a specific criminal definition and there are notice requirements and vague issues of vagueness or of being something being void for vagueness that are applicable solely in the criminal context and not necessarily in in the civil so at a a simple definition is of some guidance but it it it it simply isn't the it isn't the perfect be all and end all because of. but I just said. Well yes Arkansas Code five fifty three three one old three Arkansas at one thirty one is a Class C. misdemeanor for malicious prosecution that's criminal code that's not Civil Guard. Senator Johnson. Page two did you say there's a problem with to be. The issue the issue is the phrase due to. and I I've I've that jumped out at me as a as a as a problem from from the standpoint of in in a in the criminal context you normally see did the did the actions costs in other words that a particular action because of the death of or the injury to where the whatever and it It dump it it jumped out of me that because instead of using the word because we're everywhere where there's all sorts of case law. knowing there were knowing what at what what calls means what it doesn't mean using are using a synonym due to work what makes certainly in the lake contacts would be eighty Senate and but is it intended to say something different and costs. That's that's that's per bed so that would be a point of challenge and I think the point of maybe some dates. Thank you. Other questions from the committee. Hearing none thank you for your testimony you in your dismissed Mr Rosen for of is anyone for. no we have Christopher Keller signed up to speak against. You'll be sure that microphone is on this pulled up close and identify yourself please. Right thank you Mr chairman Christoph Keller I'm a lawyer at what a bomb grooms and told references with jobs or sort pole does forget your name wrong no that is so in the order is not there I get called a lot worse all the time I practice with John told who who testified against the bill when it was originally ran and I'll I'll keep my remarks short so as not to be repetitive Mr Rosenzweig although all say that I I share his concerns and also shares appreciation senator garner I do think that you've improved the bill responded to comments and and we do appreciate that Briefly my my to conserve my two principal concerns or with. The fact that I don't the way I read the law I don't think that it's limited to doxing doxing is specifically defined on page one of the bill. And it has that malicious language in it senator Ballenger but if you look at the lines that thirty four and and Mr Rosenzweig absolutely touched on this is part of his comments but it's it it criminalizes doxing as well as transmitting sending or posting a communication with the purpose to frighten coerce intimidate threaten abuse or harass and it's that second part that I'm really concerned about Is that doesn't include maliciousness it It I would say that includes knowingly because it hasn't intent and that you're doing it for a specific purpose but the purposes that are included are pretty broad and my concern would be how would be applied to say that somebody had the purpose to harass a minor or. Worse yet there's a pretty broad terms that I think could be applied well outside of what we would consider to be doxing and so I I'm concerned that that that the law applies to much more speech than I think really is intended with this bill the other concern that I have and and Mister is what brought it up was the first amendment concerns and I I don't think that this bill. Is this constitutional and and also I won't get into constitutional law but the Supreme Court has been very careful to limit the types of speech that are not protected by the first amendment there's certain categories of speech that are not protected the closest to doxing I would say would be incitement or true threats and the problem is is that this bill goes it stretches the boundaries of those of those categories of protected speech to the point where I I think that it goes beyond that and so I think that a court would strike this down certainly did as it applies to certain people that don't meet the specific categories of incitement or true threats better that are not protected under the first amendment so. Those are my reasons for opposing the bill. Thank you questions from the committee. Hearing none we appreciate your testimony of and your dismissed. there's no one else on the of recent tour garner would you like to close for your bill yes Sir this is what you get example of when you try to change something then they argue the other side of it once you've made to change the reason I add list purposes because I was scared if I left it more broad that we sit up here saying that definition is too broad like it did last time the reason why I don't think this is a constitutional issue because this is the the exact same language in the law now for cyber bullying I took an existing law and took what has happened C. two thousand twelve that has as far as I know not been found unconstitutional and applauded this because last time I said here they said the other definitions were too narrow whenever two openly so I just took was already existing law and made a distinction between the minor actually no one having the reasonable fear as for some list purpose I think is defined when it says with the purpose to frighten Corps here's intimidate threaten abuse or harass the minor I think that is what the definition for that purpose would be and that's the reason why malicious purpose within their I think this is a good bill I think I've worked to try to move it back listen to the concerns committee and at this time I'd like to move forward with the vote thank you so much. The motion the passenger door yes Sir it is second from Center Ballenger of the for discussion I would like to add our Senator Garner that in by experience I do not remember a bill that was pulled down and brought back. Of that I think more extensively handled the criticism of that was offered then was improved I don't think any bill is perfect but it certainly remember in that debate in the the criticism of the it looks very of the compared to what we looked at and the criticism things very well written any other debate. Discussion. All for the bill Senator hours. The center center flowers we need only camera to vote. And as for roll call vote. I alcohol all for the motion signify by saying aye. All opposed no. Got a roll call your call the roll. The chair roles that pass by the way before we local. Senator Hendren senator Hendren Senator Stubblefield Senator Stubblefield. Senator Rice. Senator rights post yes senator Johnson. Senator Johnson Vossius senator garner senator garner votes yes Senator Ballenger center Ballenger votes yes Senator flowers no Senator flowers vote. No. Senator Clark both GS. Congradulations Senator Garner you pastor bill filed one. Do we have any one is a member of the committee supposed to run house bill one fourteen per cent. Wardlaw center Gilmore okay. The. Senator Gilmore you disappeared back there or we might have brought since you were a member of the committee what brought you up earlier. Well with take that compliment senator cause usually yes someone of my size doesn't disappear very easily so. Reshaped the senator You are recognized to present your bill thank you Mr members of the committee I think this is a very simple bill and I brought Secretary Braves today to help present as well as director rational department of community corrections You know we've gone through a very difficult time with the code pandemic obviously it's brought many unprecedented changes One of the things that I think prompts this bill is the fact that you have members of the or I should say residents of Department of Community corrections who are you know working on their rehabilitation working to meet the goals to help keep them from going back into perhaps prison or some other course of action and. Part of that is there are fees associated with that that the partner of corrections has community corrections has the thirty five dollar fee as outlined in the bill for supervision and that covers some very basic costs for the inmates for the Department but during the time of the pandemic I think the Department community corrections determined that in many cases they needed to lower that fee to help those residence stay compliant if you will so that's part of the purpose of this bill so it creates a mechanism by which they can decrease also as a result increase if need be with approval from the legislature through a LC with that I'm happy to take questions and again I'm also happy to turn this over to secretary grace if he would like to comment further if that's appropriate. If they would like to this fun and also need them to identify themselves for the record Solomon graves sector corrections. Jerry bright shall director division of community correction. Would you gentlemen like to comment on the bill miss Mister I think Senate senator Gilmore some summed it up completely this is this is simply about options for the departments division of community corrections subject to review and approval by both our governing board and also the Legislative Council. Questions from the committee. Okay I have some questions. Of. Here in London. Section B. on twenty one twenty six. First but. What we're talking about raising the amount right. Where it says increase or decrease monthly yes Sir. If that's you said line twenty six year. But they may be if you go to one twenty seven Board corrections may increase or decrease monthly supervision fee at one time per calendar year. What's the reason for this again. The center comes down to options as it as it sits now the only adjustment that the Division could make and it's supervision fee which has been set at thirty five dollars for the last decade is in a legislative session because it was codified in in twenty eleven it was codified as two separate fees that totaled thirty five dollars in subsequent sessions those two separate fees were condensed into one fee what we wanted to do coming out of this Kobe Peary It is understanding that we need options to more quick clear address agencies relations is have language in the code that still set the fee at thirty five dollars but should the department be in a position where we need to adjust the fee we can go to our board make that request to the seven of them subject to their approval then bring it to your Legislative Council for final ratification. The Bill let's let's start with that last part yes Sir the Arkansas revocation doesn't mean much. The the way the way I watch it of the it the normally we're instructed are we not that if you if you all within the law that we really don't have a choice but to ratify. And that's the way it normally works legislature. I will do sensex Senator might have to deferred to the funniest of y'all to enter but I you know I health asset law this or that but that's how that all turned out so of so that doesn't mean much so in two thousand eleven the legislature saw fit to set a solid number yes Sir and here what I see is no solid number in that we're turning it over to a board that could raise a twenty percent raise a twenty percent raise of twenty percent and my role. Solely the board no Sir that is that is not correct all the board can do is accept a recommendation from the Department and ultimately referred that to the Legislative Council of the department and the board because we're going to talk about the redundant so the legislature so the Department and the board could raise it twenty percent and twenty percent and twenty percent and there's no would be no limit in the law as there is now the the the department could make a recommendation to the board to adjust either up or down twenty percent I the way that ultimately has to come to the legislature with all due respect Senate senator I have a deep respect for this body and the I. I can assure you that so long as I'm in this chair and and my leadership team is in this chair if the Legislative Council indicated their displeasure with a recommendation to adjust the fee I the way it's not going to be just. The. A I appreciate that you know the respect that we have for you that being said the protection is been there in the past as a has been a number yes Sir. The. And the. And it's my understanding and you correct me if I'm wrong is my understanding that the reason for this is not to decrease it that's because that I've been told that the cost is higher than thirty five dollars and so that we want to pass that on. Bills thus the thank you and I see your you should have no sort of thing I ask the question that is not correct and unfortunately that a narrative has been put out there but no Sir I will say publicly on the record that neither myself nor director Brad Shaw nor chairman Magnus any member of the board of corrections has any attention has any intention of making a upward adjustment to the supervision fee at the end and if I'm a I'm way that that's my understanding Mister chair as well and the way that I've understood this bill and Morris the intent from the Department coming through pandemic there needed to be flexibility to to help those residence that. Perhaps lost their employment due to the circumstances of the pandemic therefore there was no mechanism to be able to just in that case lower that fee. I commend that and the and the director of the Commission appreciate most of your thinking if an up I gotta say all come to run this real something of but the. Is this your common sense approach to things. I'm only one vote. You're in on the Senate floor but I want to see a limit in the law. Of central more and I know you bring the the bill for them but I want to see a woman in the law what you just said is a good thing but I want to seal the limit place that the people of the representatives. I have controlled and said you can do this but up to here Because of my experience here is you're not always going to be there and I'm not always going to be here and I don't want to leave it open and. But of Senator Ballinger. Thank you Mr when we were talking one thing that I thought that that attracted me to this this idea but I don't think that it's really here is is creating the flexibility. Per individual so like we talk about I feel like the more that we can have the inmates pay for their own basically picked up and carried the the and I say inmates to these people are out there probably but then to carry their own burden the better right if they if they have the ability to do it but then if you put a burden on them that is that is insurmountable then you can actually cause it to the it it's a whole lot easier to go swing drugs for a week and then go sit on the line at at the at Titans and at work right now if you're if you're working hard and you're still not able to make it in eighty creates a real pressure to go and in ten DO drugs review days try to get caught up prize that's what the biggest problems that I've I've seen with people I work with. And so so I I don't want to individual basis I'd frankly there's some people out there who are under supervision they could probably afford three hundred dollars a month yes Sir and and now that wouldn't be fair because that's probably more than what the costs associated with that is but it's okay if they if they are they're covering their their whole cost right from my standpoint that be great. But then there are some people out there that we've talked about that we don't want to put pressure on them that causes that harder for them to make that transition but this doesn't really provide for this right it's either increase at all or decrease at all will it actually does and and with the permission of the chair if I could as a senator Ballenger's question in two parts after all. Well I've sold the first pizza center is is Someone meeting that you use the term individual of individualized one of the things that director Brad Shaw and I have been talking about since I was appointed chair as as secretary in the summer that we have not taken to our board yet it is restructuring our entire supervision fee system to make it more individualized and risk based meaning that in me that offender graves who is a high risk offender maximum supervision level it takes more to supervise me offender Brad Shaw who is a minimum risk minimum level supervision of fender it takes less to supervise him well there is no mechanism now to differentiate that this bill what it will do is give us that twenty percent ceiling subject to the rule making procedures set out in ten three three oh nine that will allow director Brad Shaw and his team of myself to sit down and come up with that individualized fee based system to do just what you're suggesting which is an evidence based approach you supervised more intensively those who need to be supervise you relax restrictions relaxed responsibilities for those that don't need that same level of supervision spin of the second part of your question about those that are I have a level of indigency we have. For as long as of been doing this and well before that and when well before my time throughout Director Bradshaw's career maintain a wait a waiver system where our officers can convert supervision fees either totally forgive them or convert them to community service or other form of alternative sayings shin with the permission of the committee director Brad Shaw can go in and describe our waiver system if if if that be preferred well and I I'm somewhat familiar with although I thought usually it actually took took some outside to do it it's not just at the discretion of the of the That's correct that's great for probation the judge has not signed off on the federal side we do have that internal flick okay so it's on probation okay the one thing that just from and and this is a question for the for the the member carrying the bill it it appears like there if you don't have the votes to pass it today just from taxing we know that the chair would like to see C. N. amendment I would like to see if it were possible something to reflect exactly what you're talking about so you know what from my standpoint the idea of of bongo free up a lot for somebody's got a really good job do not doing really good and also needs the supervision that would make sense to me that that person would would actually bear his burden for for the expensive paid but I I also would like to see that and you know it can turn on back in his seat not go for the judge yes sign up if you're going to reduce the fees on it in and if you're going to make an amendment it be nice that is there I mean I I ask for which trying to do we're trying to get I don't like the idea of the same is that the chair where you know it could be every year just a twenty percent increase and why no that's not your intent I have we've seen basically that and and we fought you know the just give the agency's ability to increase the fees at their discretion because what we end up finding is those fees tend to just go up increase as always good reason to do it but they tend discreet and one of the problems in anybody's been involved in in re entry. Knows that the of the burden of the piling on of fees is a legitimate thing than that it makes it's sometimes hard to get their life back to where they were they're supposed to be so you know if the if that if that were part of the the overall question it would make it where it be easier for me to be supportive of. In center I'm I appreciate that I'm also aware based on text messages where I think this bill is going and I appreciate Mr chairs comments and and remarks as well please know the intent as you've already stated in others the intent comes from a good place I think the department is trying to certainly assist they're they're in mesa residents if you will obviously I'm not going to belabor this where I think it's going so I'm happy to pull for now and maybe work on some language that the committee can be comfortable with and I think the dialogue today it was important for that so I appreciate the members. Senator Johnson. We had to deal. Press enter the okay of the the center of Gilmore a. We will. Do whatever you want to do it's apparent that you don't have the votes of the internet and I'm I'm happy to pull the bill center okay and let me say that of. If you. Get the votes without me I will not be offended with department of corrections or you. Of. The descent but for my vote. That's what's important to me understood I I appreciate your your straight for this. Okay so Center Gilmore going to polls bill down just let me know when you'd like to run it again. Absolutely and thanks again members committee. The. Ladies and gentleman I believe that is our last bill of my missing anything. Okay we will meet again next Wednesday at nine thirty should we can look at it thank unless. If. For upon the call of the chair.