Judiciary Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (56)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB355
Act 1000
· 6 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB355 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVE…”
|
TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS. | J. Bryant | Notification that SB355 is now Act 1000 |
|
SB277
· 4 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…'m gonna break my promise for just a second. Let's bring up Senate Bill 277 since I have you down there, let's get you taken care of th…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PERMIT THE FILING … | J. Bryant | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB431
Act 987
· 4 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…t. So, here we go. First bill, re-refered to the committee, Senate Bill 431, Senator Josh Bryant, you're recognized. If you'll identify…”
|
TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; TO ELIMINATE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB431 is now Act 987 |
|
HB1033
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ETAINER PROCEEDINGS. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1033 McCullough TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CR…”
|
TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER … | McCullough | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1057
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NCIDENT TO BE PLACED ON TEMPORARY LEAVE AND ATTEND THERAPY. HB1057 R. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREAR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY CERTAIN PERSONS; AND TO PERMIT … | R. Scott Richardson | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1136
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1136 Achor TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING AC…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PROHIBIT A COURT … | Achor | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1141
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND WARRANT. HB1141 R. Scott TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE A…”
|
TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE AND INJURIOUS MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION … | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1306
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1306 Furman CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLAC…”
|
CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP; AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL … | Furman | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1430
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ON WHEN A PERSON IS SUBJECT TO AN ACTIVE WARRANT OF ARREST. HB1430 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991. | K. Moore | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1431
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1431 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; AND TO PROHIBIT THE … | K. Moore | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1473
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1473 Pilkington TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS. | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1481
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GING IN COURSE OF CONTROL OR DISTURBING THE PEACE EX PARTE. HB1481 Long TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHI…”
|
TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROVISION OF MATERIAL AID AND … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1535
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…L AID AND SUPPORT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS. HB1535 Duffield TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVIC…”
|
TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF RAPE OF A CHILD TWELVE YEARS … | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1553
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ROXYPROGESTERONE ACETATE TREATMENT FOR CHEMICAL CASTRATION. HB1553 Ray TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBU…”
|
TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1655
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. HB1655 Long TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; TO CREATE TH…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1663
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES. HB1663 K. Brown TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMO…”
|
TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMONY FOR A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN … | K. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1664
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THEIR PROBATION OR SUSPENDED SENTENCE. HB1664 K. Brown TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS…”
|
TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS AND OTHER TESTING IN AN INVESTIGATION INVOLVING ALLEGED … | K. Brown | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1676
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1676 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE STATE OR A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE; … | Womack | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1678
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INC…”
|
TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE … | Long | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1754
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1754 Gonzales TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY … | Gonzales | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1765
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1765 Underwood TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN THE THIRD DEGREE; AND TO AMEND THE … | Underwood | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1823
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND. Page 3 of 4 HB1823 Duffield TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AN…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AND NONCONSENSUAL EDITS ACT OF 2025; AND TO … | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1877
Act 977
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “to close. Thank you, Madam Chair. House Bill 1877 that represented Meeks passed out of this committee of the…”
|
CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL THAT DEPICTS A CHILD; AND … | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1877 is now Act 977 |
|
HB1885
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1885 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW EN…”
|
CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER INVOLVED IN A DEADLY USE … | Barnett | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1947
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1947 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA. | Clowney | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1948
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE CIVIL PENALTIES. HB1948 Joey Carr TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE OFFENSE O…”
|
TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE OFFENSE OF NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS COMMITTED; AND TO … | Joey Carr | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1953
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…COMMUNITY CORRECTION CENTERS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. HB1953 Torres TO PROVIDE FOR A SURCHARGE TO BE ASSESSED ON INMATE…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR A SURCHARGE TO BE ASSESSED ON INMATE PHONE CALLS TO OFFSET THE … | Torres | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1978
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1978 GazawayTO ADD AN ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIP TO THE SEVENTEENTH DI…”
|
TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIP TO THE SEVENTEENTH DISTRICT OF THE STATE DISTRICT COURT SYSTEM. | Gazaway | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB31
Act 190
· 2 mentions in transcript
Matched: “…air. Thank you, Joshua Bryant, Senate District 32. So after Senate Bill 31 passed this committee. Yeah, Tuesday, Representative Collin…”
|
AN ACT FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND LICENSING - WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION APPROPRIATION FOR … | Joint Budget Committee | Notification that SB31 is now Act 190 |
|
SB321
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…REFUNDS TO BE SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT BY JUDGMENT CREDITORS. SB321 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRAT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND. | J. Bryant | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB325
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…COMMITTED CRIMES WHEN THEY WERE UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN. SB325 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AM…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AMEND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO … | A. Clark | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB326
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB326 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 AND TH…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 AND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO MODIFY … | A. Clark | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB342
Act 749
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB342 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES. | A. Clark | Notification that SB342 is now Act 749 |
|
SB364
Act 750
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…O DEFINE "HEALTHCARE WORKER" REGARDING ASSAULT AND BATTERY. SB364 Hester TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES RELATED TO CONTRACTORS. | Hester | Notification that SB364 is now Act 750 |
|
SB435
Act 753
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB435 Irvin TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT UPON A HEALTHCARE WORKER; AND TO DEFINE … | Irvin | Notification that SB435 is now Act 753 |
|
SB457
Act 1001
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…T OF PROPERTY AFTER TEN YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE THEFT. SB457 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELEASE FROM PARO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELEASE FROM PAROLE OR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION OF CERTAIN PERSONS … | G. Leding | Notification that SB457 is now Act 1001 |
|
SB458
Act 988
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB458 G. Leding TO REQUIRE A COURT TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF FACT…”
|
TO REQUIRE A COURT TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF FACTORS SUCH AS TRAUMA AND INVOLVEMENT … | G. Leding | Notification that SB458 is now Act 988 |
|
SB459
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB459 G. Leding TO AMEND THE MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE…”
|
TO AMEND THE MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT. | G. Leding | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB487
Act 754
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS. SB487 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW ON THE DESTRUCTION OR EXPUNGEMENT OF…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW ON THE DESTRUCTION OR EXPUNGEMENT OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY RECORDS. | Irvin | Notification that SB487 is now Act 754 |
|
SB488
Act 755
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TO SUBPOENA CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS BEFORE A HEARING OR TRIAL. SB488 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSID…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSIDERED TO BE ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT. | Irvin | Notification that SB488 is now Act 755 |
|
SB490
Act 972
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB490 Irvin TO ALLOW A COURT TO WAIVE CERTAIN FEES WHEN A JUVENIL…”
|
TO ALLOW A COURT TO WAIVE CERTAIN FEES WHEN A JUVENILE IS ORDERED TO REGISTER … | Irvin | Notification that SB490 is now Act 972 |
|
SB511
Act 757
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB511 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AUTOMATED TELL…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE IMPAIRMENT. | B. Johnson | Notification that SB511 is now Act 757 |
|
SB512
Act 758
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE IMPAIRMENT. SB512 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ROBBERY AND AGGRAVAT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ROBBERY AND AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. | B. Johnson | Notification that SB512 is now Act 758 |
|
SB513
Act 759
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB513 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF MAIL THEFT; AN…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF MAIL THEFT; AND TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF … | B. Johnson | Notification that SB513 is now Act 759 |
|
SB514
Act 760
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB514 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL POSSESS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A SKIMMER; AND TO INCREASE PENALTIES … | B. Johnson | Notification that SB514 is now Act 760 |
|
SB537
Act 763
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A SKIMMER FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS. SB537 Gilmore TO CREATE THE EARNING SAFE REENTRY THROUGH WORK ACT…”
|
TO CREATE THE EARNING SAFE REENTRY THROUGH WORK ACT; AND TO CREATE A SENTENCE CREDIT … | Gilmore | Notification that SB537 is now Act 763 |
|
SB539
Act 723
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ME CREDITS THROUGH EMPLOYMENT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB539 Gilmore TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE LAW R…”
|
TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE LAW REGARDING THE DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION … | Gilmore | Notification that SB539 is now Act 723 |
|
SB555
Act 765
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TS OF SECURITY NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH INMATE COMMUNICATIONS. SB555 J. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF VIDEO V…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF VIDEO VOYEURISM; TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF … | J. Scott | Notification that SB555 is now Act 765 |
|
SB590
Act 769
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSIDERED TO BE ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT. SB590 Gilmore TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN TH…”
|
TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN … | Gilmore | Notification that SB590 is now Act 769 |
|
SB597
Act 770
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB597 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THREAT OF HARM…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THREAT OF HARM UPON A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EMPLOYEE. | B. Johnson | Notification that SB597 is now Act 770 |
|
SB599
Act 744
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MINOR DURING A TRANSFER OR SENTENCING HEARING. Page 2 of 4 SB599 C. Tucker TO ELIMINATE INTERLOCUTORY DECREES OF ADOPTION; A…”
|
TO ELIMINATE INTERLOCUTORY DECREES OF ADOPTION; AND TO AMEND THE REVISED UNIFORM ADOPTION ACT. | C. Tucker | Notification that SB599 is now Act 744 |
|
SB600
Act 771
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB600 C. Tucker TO REGULATE CONTRACTS; TO MANDATE CONTRACTUAL PRO…”
|
TO REGULATE CONTRACTS; TO MANDATE CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN CONTRACTS; AND TO CLARIFY PROPER JURISDICTION … | C. Tucker | Notification that SB600 is now Act 771 |
|
SB620
Act 1003
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB620 Irvin TO PROVIDE A SAFETY VALVE AND APPEAL RIGHT FOR A MINO…”
|
TO PROVIDE A SAFETY VALVE AND APPEAL RIGHT FOR A MINOR DEFENDANT WHO IS ALSO … | Irvin | Notification that SB620 is now Act 1003 |
|
HB1871
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1871 Gazaway TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS…”
|
TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS WHO REPEATEDLY VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THEIR … | Gazaway | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB612
Act 901
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB612 Dees TO CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST A SOCIAL M…”
|
TO CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM THAT CAUSES HARM; … | Dees | Notification that SB612 is now Act 901 |
|
SB629
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB629 Caldwell TO ALLOW AN OFFICER OF A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION…”
|
TO ALLOW AN OFFICER OF A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION TO REPRESENT THE CORPORATION IN COURT … | Caldwell | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
here and get to the Senate and get to the Senate Judiciary. So for any house member, uh, you may want to have your bill put on deferred and put it into interim study or something like that, but yesterday, we do have 3 bills left and it just so happened all three of those individuals did not vote to suspend the rules, so their bills have their bills cannot make it
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
0:34
through the process. Just pointing that out and if anybody wants
to see the list, I have it here. So those folks who want to take after me on social
media saying I won't give them a hearing. It's not my fault. So, here we go. First bill, re-refered to the committee, Senate Bill 431, Senator Josh Bryant, you're recognized. If you'll identify yourself, you're recognized to present your bill that's been re-referred to us. Thank you,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
1:03
Madam Chair. Thank you, Joshua Bryant, Senate District 32. So after Senate Bill 31 passed this committee. Yeah, Tuesday, Representative Collins brought up an issue inside the bill that was an
oversight, um, there was a line that for affirmative defense that just allowed that for 18 years and older because originally the bills that were being drafted were going to try to distinguish between additional affirmative defenses for minors under that age, working with the prosecutors, we have since removed that language but failed to remove this language. Thank you to uh Representative Collins for catching that because they make clear. and give affirmative defense for these victims of all ages, so the amendment with uh In the House yesterday was to
remove that language specifically to age, so the new bill is
affirmative defense for all victims in those categories. Members you've heard an explanation of the
bill is there, are there any questions? Seeing the questions. We have one person who has signed up to speak against the bill, Mr. Rosenswe recognized
to come in the table speak against the bill. Jeff Rosenwake, Arkansas
Speaker 15
2:18
Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. I spoke against this bill in the Senate. Obviously my objections went nowhere. I was not here on Tuesday. I was in court out of town. I want to point out on this, uh this uh child sex doll business. This is likely to be held unconstitutional under the US Supreme Court case of Ashcroft versus Free Speech Coalition, uh which uh which said that that
Things that did not portray were not a real child could not be, could not be prohibited as a matter of obscenity, etc. and so here you have an inanimate object, uh, and there are some states that have uh that have passed similar laws. Those laws have not have not yet been tested fully in court. Members, any questions that Mr. Rosenthwa?
Seeing no questions, thank you for being here today. Senator Bryant, you're recognized
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:29
to close. Thank you, Madam Chair. House Bill 1877 that represented Meeks passed out of this committee of the House and out of the Senate committee on the floor today in the Senate, addresses the same thing with images, uh, that are indistinguishable from a child. These dolls of the testimony in the Senate of these dolls. It's indistinguishable from a child except for that it is not a child, so AG is
assured me that the 38 states that have passed laws like these are being held up and it's time for legislative action to ensure these type of Items are removed from society and those that use them are prosecuted. So with that, I'm closed. Senator Bryant, his
clothes first bill. We have a motion to pass on the table is there any discussion of the motion, seeing no discussion all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed say no. I have it, you've passed the bill. Sit by
we, uh, you have, I think, 2 more bills without objection, I know I just promised Represent Gonzalez, he was next, but since I have you right down there, um, I'm gonna break my promise for just a second. Let's bring up Senate Bill 277 since I have you down there, let's get you taken care of this morning. Thank you Senate Bill 277. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
4:47
Thank you committee. Joshua Bryant, State Senate District 32. We sentinel 277 is I find it probably a little nuanced so hard to describe, but
in 2023, this body made theft and enhanceable offense. What we failed to do is add that into the comprehensive Criminal Ceiling Act of 2013 to ensure that we That those that that do this that have the potential for it to be enhanced. Don't thereby come in and get it sealed. So what this bill does is add, adds that that look back period for the misdemeanor violation of theft of property that we passed in 2013 into the the litany of items that are ineligible for sealing.
Now the argument may be that if somebody comes in and steals something minor that you don't want that on the record to prohibit, you know, maybe a potential future employment and visiting with the prosecutors that, you know, we, this body just recently this year passed, um, Outlined the procedures for putting under advisement for our courts to use, so that defendant, that steals minor items, missing items can be put on probation and then have that record, you know, not go, not have that theft go on their record at that time. But uh
Enhanceable act of a offense that just keeps occurring. The problem with the law is, once you seal that record, it is sealed as a matter of law, and they cannot go back to use that as an enhanceable offense. So what the Defendants are doing are sealing those otherwise enhanceable records where the courts and the prosecutors cannot by a matter of law, go back and get those records to use them for the prosecution of an enhanceable offense. And so with that, I would be
glad to take any questions to try to further explain. Members,
are there any questions? Seeing the questions from the committee, we do
have several people who have signed up to speak against the bill. First, we have, I believe it's Zac Bumgartner and my, I'm close. You're welcome to go to the end of the table if you identify yourself for the record, uh, you recognize to speak. And for anyone who signed up to speak, this committee typically doesn't limit time, but we're
under a time crunch, so we'd appreciate if you
Speaker 24
7:08
keep it about 2 minutes or so ma'am. Thank you. Uh, thank
Zach Baumgarten
Unverified
7:12
you for having me. Uh, my name is Zach Baumgarten. I'm the pro bono program director for the Veterans Legal Services clinic at the Bowen School of Law. I'm also chair of the veteran section of the Arkansas Bar Association. I'm here today though as a private citizen and my views and opinions are my own. I just wanted to talk on this bill. It would greatly harm veterans and also just regular civilians who are trying to steal their records just to make sure everyone's familiar with
the process in Arkansas to be able to seal your record, you have to have completed your sentence. This includes probation, jail time, any classes you have to take and including fines and fees. Restitution is part of that. So in order to seal, you would have had to pay back the business or person in which you stole from. So we cannot seal it while they still owe money to their victim of the crime, basically. I also wanted to um bring up the in the bill, you guys can see before you, you could
negligently ho kill someone, commit 3rd degree battery, expose yourself to this committee, um, sexually assault someone in this committee or commit domestic battery and steal those records twice as fast as you would if you stole a bag of chips from downstairs. So this is really disproportional to what's happening. What we're seeing when veterans come to seal their records with us is they were in a bad place, usually an act of addiction, and they are back on the right track and trying to get their life back together and they're sealing that, and now we're going to have to make them wait a whole
decade to seal a misdemeanor, and we don't even make folks wait that long for felonies. So we would just ask that you guys really think about who this will harm. Uh, we don't seal Bonnie and Clyde don't come to us to steal our records. These are, these are folks who are trying to get their life back on track, get things together, re-enter society, and by clearing their record, they can be able to do that. Otherwise, we kind of force them into the sides of society and oftentimes that can cause them to reoffend. So we just ask that y'all consider these things, remember that they have to have paid back
restitution to be, to be able to seal these records, so they have completed their sentence and paid back the business or person that they
stole from. Thank you. Members, any questions? Seeing no questions. Thank you for your testimony today. Next, we
have to speak against the bill. Tina Bowers Lee. Ms. Leaf and Greg Perry might as well double team us today. If you'll identify yourself, you're recognized.
Speaker 33
9:39
Greg, executive director of Arkansas Public Defender Commission.
Chair
Unverified
9:44
Tina Bowers Lee, attorney at the Arkansas Public Defender Commission.
Speaker 33
9:49
Madam Chair, members, just and Miss Tina won't be able to expand upon this a lot more, but whenever I became director, the one thing I wanted to do is set up something within our office where we can assist people to get their records expunged for expungeable offenses from the standpoint of if they've paid their debt. I think everybody would agree we'd much rather have them working a better job, paying more more in taxes, being a productive citizen.
Uh, and what this bill will do is Just to clear this up, if I've got a client. who has been convicted of misdemeanor theft. Let's say shoplifting. And comes in in 2 years later, wants to expunge that shoplifting, and it happens. And then 2 more years later goes out and gets another shoplifting. Conviction The prosecutor can use that
expunged conviction for enhancement purposes. It would still be a felony. They have access to this, and I think the prosecutors will even tell you they can do that. So what this is going to do is it's going to catch up some 18 year old kid on a Friday night stealing a road sign. Who gets a misdemeanor conviction and can't do anything with it for 10 years or the veteran, as you just heard. Uh, but I assure you that even if it's sealed, the prosecutor can use it.
For enhancement purposes for a second offense felony, and I'll let Ms Lee expand upon
Chair
Unverified
11:29
that. Um, just to kind of briefly explain what happens when a record is sealed. A judge issues an order to the clerk ACIC, various agencies to seal that record. It's segregated. It's administratively segregated. It's not destroyed. When a person is picked up on a second charge and the prosecutors run a report from the Arkansas Crime
Information Center that sealed conviction is still reported. It is still on the ACIC report and it says this ATN is sealed. ATM means a rush tracking number. Under the comprehensive Act that we're talking about today in 1690 1417. It specifically says that a sealed conviction can be used for any lawful purpose in a criminal proceeding. That includes enhancing a misdemeanor to a felony. So in other words, this bill is not necessary. The
comprehensive act already encompasses what can be done with a sealed record. What the unintended consequence of this act is is. to harm people who are trying to get better jobs, stable housing, um, For instance, I had a mom a few months ago, who had stolen baby items because she didn't have the money, baby items like necessities, not toys, necessities and picked up a
misdemeanor theft. She was trying to get a job and could not get a job, a meaningful job, meaningful employment that pays a living wage. With that on her record until we got it sealed. Under this act, she would have to wait 10 years, but the person who commits a felony theft, who completes their sentence, pays all of their fines, will be able to immediately steal their conviction. And so that's another unintended consequence of this bill. Representative Shepherd, you
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
13:24
recognized for her question. Thank you, Madam Chair. If, if y'all could, if you know off
the top of your head, what is the uh distinction between misdemeanor theft and felony theft, and is there on misdemeanor theft, is there, I assume there's no minimum threshold or minimum value any any theft of anything of value, uh, whether it's $1.05 dollars or whatever is going to be a misdemeanor theft. Misdemeanor theft is a class A misdemeanor carries
Speaker 33
13:50
up to one year in the county jail and or
are found not to exceed $2500. Second offense, felony theft, if it's if it's escalated from the misdemeanor second offense, misdemeanor to a felony is a D felony now that this body, the legislature made it a second offense felony, carries up to 6 years in prison and or a fine not to exceed $10,000. Is there a distinction based
Speaker 43
14:15
on value of the items? No, no. OK. Members, any other questions? Seeing no
further questions, thank you for being here today
and the last person signed up to speak against the
Speaker 15
14:36
bill, Mr. Rosenwa. Jeff Rosenzweig, Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and just adopt by reference everything my predecessors just said, and I will point out one of the things. The statute that uh Senator Bryant referred to the past this year is not mandatory. It's essentially potluck as to whether or not a judge wants to
go along with it. It is not a if the judge doesn't want to do it, there's there's no enforceability factor on it. Members, any questions?
Saying no questions. Thank you for being here. Senator Bryant, you recognized clothes for your bill. with the chair's permission, I'd
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
15:14
like to bring up prosecutors association just to address some of the Issues, Mr. David Etheridge. Well, We're at the closing part, um.
Speaker 11
15:31
We typically don't allow any additional, um, Without objection. Is there
any objection by the committee to allow the prosecutors to come up? Seeing no objection will allow the prosecutors to come up. Thank you.
Speaker 57
16:03
OK. I'm going to allow a little leeway, but you've got 2 minutes of leeway. I'm David Etheridge. I'm the
Speaker 58
16:19
prosecuting attorney from the 14th Judicial District. Chris Walton Saline County
Speaker 59
16:21
prosecutor. We'll go ahead. You, you can start. There's no doubt, there's no
doubt that we have habitual thieves that come in, uh, uh, get caught, uh, serve a quick sentence. turn around and then steal again. It, it, it is
Speaker 62
16:45
a problem throughout the county, uh, what they said generally speaking about the law is accurate. I'm not disputing any of that, but, but to say that it is not the habitual theft is not a problem. It is a terrible problem with certain people, and we do have the repeat offender offenders,
and they do know how to play the game. That's all that I
would add to that. We see Crawford,
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
17:14
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, you said certain people. Do this continually. But we just heard. That we would with this law, it would be a net that would bring in those 178, well, I guess 18 year olds who made a mistake and it would bring in veterans. So
we're trying to pass a law that would be a net for the whole state when we're talking about a few people who are continually, uh, stealing. Is that correct? Yeah I don't want to, this, we're
not here to argue. I will say to you that uh it's not just a few people we see this on a regular basis, unfortunately, and I think one thing you hear from prosecutors all the time is why we have discretion. We're not out looking for everybody, but there are times when the, the
people who are continual repeat offenders are a problem for our communities, and they're doing things that create a problem for us, and this is a tool that will help, is what we would say to you. Thank you. Members, any
other questions? Representative Springer, you recognized for your question. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr.
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
18:25
Attridge, we just talked. This is and this is gonna. In It's totally against what you and I just talked about, isn't that correct? No, ma'am, I think it goes back to discretion,
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
18:38
ma'am, that's why we are not after everyone who's out there, and we want to do the right thing, but sometimes we need to have that extra tool in our toolbox to let us protect the public, uh, and that's what y'all called us to do, uh, to be protect the public and some, and we have to make decisions and we're not looking for everybody, but there are groups who have made this more difficult for us. Representing
Shepherd, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
19:03
Chair, and I'm trying to recall because the The the law on ceiling records
over about 14 years here has changed a lot. There have been different laws and we've tried to uh simplify, but when
a person files a petition to seal are the is the prosecutor's office notified of that petition, and do
you have the opportunity to, uh, object to that petition or provide additional information. Yes, sir, we do. Uh, they are, they, they do come to our
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
19:31
office. We see them before they go to the judge, and this is going to be an odd answer. It's
an unusual time that I object to someone's being sealed. We're looking at those people to see who we should do and who we should not, and there are a lot of times factors that the general public would like us to be looking at to protect them.
Members, any other questions? See no further questions. Thank you, gentlemen for coming to the end of the table. Senator Bryant, you recognized clothes for your bill. Thank
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
20:03
you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you for, for considering this. I think as I talked to different judges and prosecutors. You know
As defense attorneys look to help their clients. They're using every tool they can within the law, and I commend them for that. The, the part of the statute that said in 1690 1417B that says once it's sealed, it shall be deemed never to happen as a matter of law is in conflict with what our ceiling statute says. So this body said a misdemeanor. has a 10-year look back to be enhanceable up the felony for these type of offenses. And so I would say most of these offenses
within the exactly I'm attempting to man 1690, 1405B. We we put these on there for a reason. Do not steal them because we have to be aware of what's going on in your life, um, in the courts. So as you, as you make that mistake early on, the courts and the prosecutors have lots of deference to how they want to treat that. However, once that record gets sealed, uh, I would contend the prosecutors and the judges have a very difficult time overcoming that bar to ensure that they can prosecute accordingly to what
this assembly said, a misdemeanor offense needs to be enhanceable, so with that, I'm closed. Senator Bryant for his bill.
What are the wishes of the committee? We have a motion to
pass. Is there any discussion of the motion? All in favor of the motion, please say aye. All opposed say no. The nose hair at the bills failed. Thank you. Bryant,
Speaker 76
21:39
you have one more real quick. Um Senate,
excuse me, members, Senate Bill 355. If you'll turn to Senate Bill 355. You identify
yourself. You're recognized to present your bill.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
22:08
The committee, Joshua Bryant, State Senate District 32. Senate Bill 355, um, is attempting to add, um, in the
obstruction of justice code, somebody to having received an in-person service of subpoena issued by a judge in the court clerk knowingly fails to appear and testify at a trial at a criminal trial for a court hearing. So what the courts are saying is, is the issue their subpoena and people are not showing up. Now typically that is just a A Losing my train of thought here. Typically that is just where, where the courts issue a, a
contempt and again issue another subpoena to have a show cause hearing, and there's a lot of ambiguity of the process and the courts are not getting people to show up, so the ask was to allow a in the criminal statute, a tool for the courts to use to ensure compliance with their subpoenas to make them show up. Now when I first filed this, there were some language issues, the public defenders. Association worked with the with the judge that brought this to me to ensure the language was clear enough to capture these types of offenses, so with that,
I'll be glad to take any questions members, any
questions? Representing Collins, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
23:27
Chair. So why is contempt not an adequate tool in the toolbox to handle this situation. Well, they're not showing up the first time
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
23:34
and they're not showing up the second time. And then when they do show up for that show cause hearing, there's, there's a lot of ambiguity in the process. That which got them that got them there, and it's just not an effective tool um to get them there. So having a tool to
prosecute and have outside of the rule of the courts, a a rule in statute or a law and statute, they felt this
would be a better deterrence to ensure compliance with the court's order. Follow up please. You recognized? Um, doesn't the
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
24:08
contempt charge, I mean, what, what is the content that's a misdemeanor charge criminal charge as well too, right? Is it not? I believe it's
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
24:15
just in the court's rule. I'm not sure if what holds. OK Thank you.
members, any other questions? Representative Hudson, you recognize for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
24:28
So as I read this, this, I mean, even a witness is going to be charged with a class C. Misdemeanor for not showing up in a criminal matter
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
24:37
if they are summoned by the courts to appear, and they do not show up, they can be obstructing justice. Do you recognize. So just to be clear, this
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
24:44
is somebody who's not been charged with a crime, who may have witnessed a crime who may
have been affected by the crime, and we're going to charge them.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
24:54
This is somebody who was asked by the court to come to the court in a criminal matter to
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
25:02
adjudicate an issue that refuses the order of the court. Yes. Members, uh, Representing Moore, you recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator Bryant, for bringing this issue forward. I just got a question regarding your language on page one, the last two lines, having received an in-person service of subpoena, particularly the part about knowingly fails to appear to testify. Um, does that
knowingly fails include obstructions such as their car breaking down or weather or travel, unfortunate circumstances. No. be addressed at the, at the trial for such a An
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
25:32
obstruction charge. And so if they can, you know, convince the judge that this is the issue
of why it did not appear. The judge can take that under advisement. say younger, you're recognized for a question. Chair, Senator,
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
25:47
I think what you're trying to get at here is the issues that clogging up the court calendar so badly if
people just not showing up, and this is to help move the process along. Would you agree? I would agree, Represent. Thank you, sir. Thank you, ma'am. Members, any
other questions? Seeing no further questions, we have no one who's signed up to speak for or against the bill, Senator Bryant, you recognized clothes for your bill. I'm closed committee.
I appreciate it. Senator Bryant's close for bill what is the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
26:19
of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Say no. The nose have it, the bill has failed.
Members, let's go to the top of our agenda representing Gonzalez. You're recognized to present Senate Bill 342. Members, let's go to Senate Bill 342. Identify yourself for
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
27:01
the record, you're recognized. Representative Justina Gonzalez, District 89.
Speaker 102
27:08
Members, I think this one's going to be a whole lot easier than the last ones we've we've
Speaker 101
27:15
done. We're counting on you. Um So somebody's, uh, dog kills your livestock, uh, you have a few options you can, you can shoot the dog. You can, you can kill the dog before it ever gets to your livestock. We're not changing that in this bill, um. You can also, if you know who the owner is, take them to court. We're not changing that. We're, what we're doing is adding um
And other livestock is the new language of added two sheep, goats, cattle, swine, and poultry. And allowing for treble damages. That's it. Members, any questions? Seeing their questions, we
have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized clause for your bill. I'm closed. Make a motion to pass. Members, we have a motion to pass on
the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
28:03
ayes have it. You have passed the bill.
Members, I don't see Senator Ervin or Representative Johnson in the room, so we're going to Senate Bill 364, Senate Bill 364, representing Womack, you recognized to come to the end of the table, if you'll identify yourself, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 364. Thank you, Madam
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
28:32
Chair and committee. Uh, this is a very simple bill that establishes requirements for contractors who wish to bring a civil action for breach of contract or quantum merit. Uh
Claims with no formal contract anyway, half of you know what that means, and the other half is basically if you You may not care, but if you've entered into
Speaker 104
28:56
this, we want to hear you say it all over again. You did really good. I, I studied. I actually studied,
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
29:02
uh, Latin. Anyway, what, what this does, I'll tell you the reason, the reason we need it, uh, I'll just give you an example of some issues this will solve. A young contractor who gets involved in a job, uh, you know, let's say,
pour slab out back, we do that, it meets, it's well within their licensing requirements while they're there, the customer says, hey, will you also Put in a new window and before they get done with that, they're like, can you fix my shower, you know, whatever the deal. All of a sudden they've crossed the threshold that their license allows. Well, currently, if that customer says, well, you don't have the appropriate license. There's no recourse for that guy to get paid. So that's one example, uh. Another one would be an out of state contractor. Like down close to my part of
the world, somebody from Texarkana, maybe works right across the state line. The law's a little bit different in Texas. They just don't know the rules. This They can only take these this legal action if they've squared with the contractor licensing board and paid all appropriate fines. So it, it simply allows people on Avenue that make a mistake or even another one I thought of while I was sitting here is while I've been up here, uh, legislating perhaps my Uh, license renewal came in and
it lapsed and I've get a job as soon as I get back and take it. All of a sudden I don't have a contractor's license. It would allow me an avenue to go through the contractor licensing board to square things, pay whatever fines they think are appropriate and
Speaker 107
30:28
carry on doing, doing my work. So happy to answer any questions members, are there
any questions? Seeing the questions, we have no one who signed up to speak for or against the bill.
We have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye.
And he opposed say no. The eyes have it. The bill is passed. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee. The next bill on our agenda, Senate Bill 457. Has an amendment Senator Leadding
So letting the amendments being passed out, but I think we'll go ahead and let you explain the amendment. I believe
Speaker 111
31:40
the amendment just adds Representative Hudson as the House sponsor. Members, you've
heard the explanation of the amendment wishes of the committee. We have a motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion, seeing no discussion all in favor of adoption of the amendment, please say aye. Any opposed say no. I have it. The amendment has been adopted. You are now recognized to present your bill as amended. Thank you, Madam Chair. State Senator Greg Leting, District
Speaker 114
32:05
30, haven't been in front of House Judiciary in quite some time, so this is
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
32:08
nice. I'll be real brief, uh, 457 is one of a package of juvenile justice reforms that we've been running this session. Senator Ervin and I have been carrying them on the House end. Representative Hudson and Representative Clowney are carrying it down here in the House with 457, just real quick, back in 2017, Senator Ervin passed a bill to end juvenile life without parole. We were the first state in the South to do that. Then in 2019, Representative Clowney and I passed a bill that, among other things established a path for people
freed under Act 539 to have their parole discharged. Ms. Laura Nicks was the first person freed under Act 539. She was also the first person to make use of the 2019 law passed by Representative Clowney and I, and so we learned a lot from her process. We worked closely with her and she was finally able to get her parole discharged, and last November she cast her first vote in an election in her life. Um, but again, we got some feedback. We worked with the prosecutors on that process. The big change was 457 is that instead of a prosecutor having to sign off on this person having the parole discharged. We're just going to
simply give a timeline and prosecutors will have a certain amount of time to object and that way they won't have to affirm this decision. They can just simply step in if they feel that it needs to. We felt that giving a certain timeline was better because prosecutors are busy. We want to make sure that people know what the timeline is going to be on this issue, and so that's what we did. There was again we worked with the prosecutors on this. There was no opposition in the Senate and to the extent the Senate's wisdom matters at the center of the building. It did come off the floor unanimously. Happy to take questions. Members, are there any questions?
Seeing their questions, we have no one who signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized to close for your bill. I'm closed and I'd appreciate a good vote, members. Senator letting his clothes for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? We have a motion to pass as amended. We have a motion due pass as amended on the table. Any discussion of that motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
33:58
Any opposed say no. The I have it. The bill is passed.
So letting while we have you down at the end of the table. Yes, ma'am. We're turning our page to Senate Bill 459. It has an amendment. Yeah. You're doing wonderful. Thank you. We pass the amendment out. You're recognized to. Present your amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
34:25
State Senator Greg Weding, District 30. The amendment just adds Representative Hudson as the House sponsor. Remember you've heard
an explanation amendment where the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion of the motion.
Seeing that all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed? I have it. The motion has been adopted. You are now
recognized to present Senate Bill 459 as amended. Thank you, Madam Chair. This
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
34:48
one is even more straightforward here in Arkansas, we adjudicate children under the age of 10 differently just because of their age, just like my daughter back here who just turned 9 who just stepped into the room. All we're doing here is clarifying the existing practice. We learned that even though this is the standard practice that the language throughout the code was not consistent.
So we are just clarifying in the code that the state will adjudicate juveniles under the age of 10 differently. Happy to take questions. Members,
any questions? Seeing no questions, you're you're recognized clothes for your bill. I'm closing and I'd appreciate a good vote. Senator,
letting his clothes for his bill the wishes of the committee. We have a motion due pass as amended. Any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Say no.yes
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
35:33
have it. You have passed your bill. Thank you, Representative Hudson.
It was Sully her being down there as your sponsor. Believe me, I'm well aware. Let's
Speaker 47
35:50
see, you have Senate Bill 458. You have one
more, one more members Senate Bill 458. 1 less rodeo. I Members while representing Clowneys going to the end of the table. Not to jinx Senator Leaddings being on a roll this morning in front of our committee, but a little bird has told me it's his birthday, so I'm sure he, oh.
No place I'd rather be. So we're glad that you're wanting to spend your birthday with House Judiciary and happy birthday. You're recognized to present Senate Bill 458. Thank you, Madam Chair. State
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
36:29
Senator Greg Letting District 30. Nicole Cloudy, State Representative
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
36:32
District 21. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. The Senate
Speaker 114
36:36
Judiciary Committee really had helped us make this a much better bill than it was when we
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
36:40
introduced it. We took their feedback, specifically feedback from Senator Matt McKee. We also incorporated feedback from the prosecutors and Judge Braswell,
who approached us after we ran this bill the first time. Essentially all we're doing here um again, typically in juvenile courts, judges consider factors of trauma in childhood experiences when sentencing juveniles, but sometimes minors are sentenced in adult courts, and it's not necessarily the same practice there. So all we're doing with 4. is making sure that juveniles who are sentenced in adult court that the judges consider the same factors they would if the juvenile was being sentenced in juvenile court. It's, OK. There we go. And this is the last one. Members, any questions?
Seeing your questions, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. You recognized clothes for your bill. I'm closing and I'd appreciate a good vote, members, Senator letting the birthday boy, his clothes for his bill. What are
the wishes of the committee? We have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion, seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it and congratulations and happy birthday. You've passed your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative. It's been an honor.
Members, we're going to go ahead and skip down to accommodate the senators that are in the room because most of the rest of our bills are going to have house sponsors, Senator Desser, the next one up. Members, if you'll turn to Senate Bill 612. There is an amendment on this bill, so let's get that amendment passed out. And then we'll recognize you to present your amendment.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
38:47
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, member of state Senator Tyler Dees
District 35. You're recognized to present your amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 612 amendment has some technical nature and some clean up words, but we did also take feedback from different industry leaders when they reviewed this bill and tried to make some accommodations to some definitions and some changes, but really not anything substantive to the nature of the bill. Members you've heard explanation of the bill. What are the
Speaker 11
39:17
wishes, I mean, of the amendment, the wishes of the committee.
We have a motion to adopt the amendment. Is there any discussion of the motion, seeing no discussion all in favor of adopting the amendment, please say aye. Any opposed say no.
The amendment, it passes, the amendment has been adopted. You're recognized to present your bill
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
39:35
as amended. Thank you, committee. So Senate Bill 6121 as amended is really a framework to, to help parents when there's harm been done. I spent some time in the interim between last session and this session. I got
to know a member from the legislature in South Carolina and he was a father who his son, uh was had a tragic incident, a situation where through a social media interaction was preyed upon awful situation where as a sextortion case became intimate with what he thought was a classmate, female. On online screen grabs and, and, um,
pictures and and video being taken of that situation were used to extort him and say if you don't send us hundreds of dollars in gift cards and Venmos and transactions of the like then we're going to send all of these images and videos to all your friends. We're going to post them online. We're going to send them to your parents, and this was a high school student, and as you can imagine the horror he ended up taking his life just a few moments later. So we hear these stories that keep happening with these tragic
situations and they're just gut wretching as parents and, and so I do believe social media is and big tech are trying their best in a lot of cases to prevent some of these things. However, uh, we want more, and we, we demand more and so we're trying to work, work on that. Well what this bill does is helps create a private right of action, the ability for parents, if they're their children have been harmed on Online, um, it creates the ability for um uh a suit to be
filed in, and that's all it does, if, if, if they can prove harm to their children. There's liability to the social media companies if they're not, if they're not being good actors. And so you'll see language on that, but that's really what this bill does. It creates a voice for the parents. Maybe you've heard an
explanation of the bill. Is there any any questions by members. Representing college, you recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I support
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
41:49
what you're doing here with this. I, I kind of want to
make sure that uh you know, it's gonna hold up obviously with a lot of these, the, the constitutional challenges come. Have you based this on any language that's been either 6 or successfully defended in other states or are there any models or I guess what kind of assurances do you have that this will be all right? Sure, I actually
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
42:13
anticipate there's, there's probably going to be lawsuit. from these companies I would assume, but I can also say that um you know, this body, we took it, we have two bills that are
coming out there, 611 and 612. Um, 612 is really focusing on the private right of action and in very tailored into this focus, but I can tell you this, this legislative body 23 years ago, last session, we, we were one of the first in the country, if not the first country to to step in this direction, and I'll, I'll adamantly admit that when leaders go first, we don't get Everything right. And in fact, every state that has dozens of states that have fallen behind us have all adapted from each other and we've learned from each other. And so, yes, we have
tried to take the learnings from other states, from other federal courts, court cases to make sure that we try to get the best bill possible. You recognize, so do
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
43:05
you know how many states have this private right of action and how has it been used, if at all, do you know if it's, I don't have that. I'm sorry. OK, OK, thanks. Hudson, you're
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. um, and
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
43:17
thank you, Senator, for bringing legislation to try to protect kids. I appreciate that. I'm trying to understand, um, a little bit better though how
this this functions, um, so on page. 3, I guess, the prohibited activity by social media platform. It says that they shall not use a design algorithm or feature that they know or should have known causes a user to purchase a controlled substance, develop an eating disorder, and so on and so forth. What exactly does that look like and who makes that decision? like how do, how do we know that they have designed something that causes an eating disorder, for example. That's a great question. And this
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
43:59
framework would allow a civil civil penalty to have
that day in court to be able to prove that, and it would take a jury to be able to to be able to help in that court case, so the court will be able to decide if there's negligence and there should be liability to the company in that situation. Members, any other questions representing
Clowney, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
44:22
follow up, Senator Dees on Representative Hudson's question, um, of course, now I've lost it, but that section that talks about developing an
algorithm, um, so I'm looking at at bullet 0.4 knows or should have known through the exercise of reasonable care causes a user to develop or sustain an addiction to the social media platform, uh, I understand and agree with you the reason that you're trying to pass something like this is. that is in fact what all social media companies do, but that feels like a huge, um, a huge undertaking to change that algorithm. Will this go into effect.
What, what is the timeline on all of this, I guess is my question, because it seems like companies will need some time to look at their practices, change them if necessary in order to be
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
45:12
in compliance with this. Um, sure, I'm not exactly sure on the timeline. I would believe it would follow just with our normal process of of bills and after we sign he die, but I think I would also point out that there's kind of different levels of this, so if you see that section has civil penalties outlined on line 24 if that stayed the same through the amendment. And then also when it
moves to the continue through the bill that suicide and attempted suicide have have more stringent penalties and focus or damage potential damages. And so it does try to outline it as distinct difference between um maybe an eating disorder or some other addictive measures and then also a different level for suicide and extreme harm. Representing more you recognize for a
question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
45:59
Senator Dees, this is a very relevant issue to today,
and I understand what you're trying to do, and I support the nature of what you're trying to do, but going off of what's been asked previously that developers sustain an addiction to social media platform. These platforms want people to use. Their their platforms, obviously to generate ad clicks and revenue, etc. What is the difference between, um, sustaining an addiction versus just driving, uh, traffic. Uh, could you help me understand
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
46:34
that? Sure, if I would point you to Senate Bill 611, which is also in front of our body as well. It has a very clear definitions about compulsory contemporary compulsory addiction standards, which which are are used, I think pretty Readily across definitions in other other law and other studies, and so I think that would be uh used definitely to to make an argument around addiction when it's an issue. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we
have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
47:11
recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, members. I
appreciate the questions and the concern. I think we all are trying to keep Arkansas citizens and children protected and what I love is, is that this would bring a a tool for, for parents and legal guardians to be able to, if the harm has been done, there's a framework for a chance to have their day in court and a to have their voice be heard. And so, um, I'd appreciate a
good vote. Senator Dees closed first bill. What are the missions of the committee? We have
a motion to pass. As amended motion to pass on the table as amended. Any discussion of that motion? Representing Hudson, you're recognized for discussion. Thank you,
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
47:52
Madam Chair, and Senator Des, again, I appreciate this legislation. I think that functionally though, I have some concerns just about the language and the breadth of some of the requirements, um, particularly
given the fact that we're not giving any sort of runway for these social media companies to get into compliance without
being subject to to pretty substantial liability, um, I, I wish that there was more time in the session for you to go
back and tinker with this a little bit. And so I'm unfortunately
going to be reluctant now. Members, any other discussion of the motion? Seeing no further discussion all
in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed? Say no. The eyes have it. Congratulations, you have passed your bill. Next member, we're going to Senate Bill 629, Senate Bill 679, Senator Caldwell, you're recognized to go to the
end of the table, identify yourself and present
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
48:52
your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee. I'm Ronald Caldwell, Senate District 10, uh, Senate Bill 629, uh, allows a Member of a officer of a closely held corporation or LLC to
represent themselves in the matter of evicting someone for years now, uh, for a landlord to evict a tenant that has not paid their rent, uh, you would go to the sheriff, pay him a fee for eviction. He would go down and have that person removed due to a court case in Flashy County a few months back. Now we have to Uh, use that process as a civil matter and go to court. If I own my property in my personal name I could represent myself, but
because the liability issues, uh, many people own it in either a LLC or an escort and now we have to hire an attorney, so our expense has gone from about $75 to about 2000 or $2200 to have that cause of action, and this would allow that person who owns that corporation or or uh Scorp or LLC to represent
themselves only in the matter of eviction.
members you've heard an explanation of the bill. Are there any questions Senator Caldwell? Seeing their questions, we do have an individual who signed up to speak against the bill. Aaron Squires, Mr. Squires, if you'll come to the end of the table, identify yourself and you'll be recognized to speak against the bill. Thank you, Madam
Speaker 140
50:38
Chair and committee. I'm Aaron Squires. I'm here representing the Arkansas Bar Association. Um, Senator Caldwell correctly stated that this bill would
Speaker 150
50:46
allow a non-attorney to appear in court while pleadings, make arguments, um, and that is in contravention of long standing law in Arkansas for over 100 years. Corporations have not been allowed to represent themselves in any court of law, allowing a non-attorney to appear and that person would be an officer of the corporation. Creates all kinds of potential problems for the administration of justice. If if the attorney, excuse me, if the if the corporate officer makes a
mistake, then that corporation can be held liable for sanctions. In the event that you have an unscrupulous court officer who corporation officer who follows these actions, then your constituents could be harmed if they fail to pay their rent. Um, there's constitutional questions associated with this, the Arkansas Supreme Court has exclusive rulemaking ability, uh, and that is confirmed. Amendment 28, uh by, by allowing this bill to pass, then there will most definitely be constitutional challenges which I do not believe would survive. And the proper way to handle
this is included in the statute. Any corporation can have an in-house counsel represent that corporation in court, as long as, as long as that corporation is a party. And so in the event that it was an eviction action, if that corporation has an in-house counsel, that in-house counsel can appear. They can make those arguments, and you have a administration of justice, as long as it's within that corporation's interest and what they're doing business is. So I do not believe this bill is appropriate. It's unconstitutional, I think creates a lot of problems for
the administration of justice. Representative Shepherd, you're
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
52:23
recognized for a question? Thank you, uh, Madam Chair, and, and I guess I'll ask this question
to the witness, but Senator Caldwell could respond in his closing. Do we, are there any other examples under Arkansas law where we allow this, this type of action on behalf of an entity. I know that uh in the past, entities would complain about when they had a small debt to collect and going into small
claims court that they would have to have an attorney or also in instances where they are um responding to a garnishment that's been issued to an employer, I know, uh, there've been complaints through the years about having
to hire an attorney to do that. I'm just not sure, so I, I'm curious as to are there other areas of the law
Speaker 150
53:10
where we allow this. The, if I may, uh, the statute in question specifically allows a non-attorney to examine and ensure title. That is it. All
the other exceptions require this allow the corporation to do certain things as long as they have an attorney representing them in court. Uh, so while responding to a writ of garnishment, um, you know, could be allowed and appearing in small claims court could be allowed. Eviction cases by their very nature can be adversarial, uh, and if we have a situation where there is a contested case. You have a non-attorney arguing a case in an open court without the training, the training and experience that's required of an attorney.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
53:51
Representing more, you recognize for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, if this law were to pass, what sort of precedent would this set for potential other corporations wanting similar laws and not non-licensed attorneys practicing in
Speaker 140
54:08
court. I think that's a high likelihood of that. I mean, there's, uh, you know,
Speaker 150
54:13
there's always a concern about expansion of of the practice of law to non-attorneys and attorneys, you know, practices are attacked regularly
in sessions and seeking to allow attorneys, not attorneys, to do certain things. Certain things this particular proceeding this particular bill would definitely create potential problems for for further expansion as
Speaker 153
54:31
well as the issues already explained. Where Saint Hudson, you're recognized for a question. Thank
you, Madam Chair. Mr. Squires, um, I
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
54:39
wanted you to expand a little bit on the statement you made in your, your introductory remarks talking about um some of
the potential liability that could apply to the corporation if uh, if an officer of the corporation appeared instead of an attorney for the benefit of the
committee, um, could you sort of explain the difference between the obligations, um, of an attorney representing a client in court versus, um, the obligations of an officer of the corporation and why that's dangerous to the corporation. Certainly. So, say for example that
Speaker 150
55:09
you're in a contested case, um, and interrogatories and request for production of documents are propounded to the other side, which is discovery, um, that attorney doesn't respond because, excuse me, that that corporate officer didn't respond. And then the other party has to file a motion to
compel. They still don't respond. Then there can be sanctions that would be issued against that corporation because this attorney doesn't, excuse me, this corporate officer doesn't understand what is required of an attorney because they're not trained as an attorney. So the, the corporation itself can be harmed by not having proper representation. And then again, of course, there's always lots of potential problems associated with the defendants in these cases, um, dealing with a non-attorney, while of course they're required to hire an attorney to defend themselves, or they can defend themselves, but typically hire an attorney
as well. So again, I think it's, there's, there's lots of potential problems for the entities that are seeking to get this bill passed, which again would potentially be very problematic for them. Repres Brown, you recognized for a
question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Shepherd, I think
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
56:13
kind of hit the nail on the head. My question was, is, My recollection is black letter law, but of
Speaker 156
56:19
course the Supreme Court is the only entity that can regulate to practice law in the state. And the one little exception we have where a closely held corporation can
appear in small claims court, as I recall, there's a lot of rules about how small it has to be, and even then that's only allowed by Supreme Court rules. Is that correct? Not by statute? And so here we would be
Speaker 150
56:39
essentially sticking our nose into their business to rewrite their rules. That's correct. And again, I think that invites constitutional challenges to this to this bill if it was passed.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
56:49
Thank you. Representative Tosh, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, I'm not an attorney, so I, I'm kind of seeking information here, but are you saying that uh if I'm a landlord that I'd have to hire
an attorney to I had to go to small claims court? No,
Speaker 150
57:03
this is only eviction cases and they're not pending in small claims court. They can be in district court or in circuit court. So if I
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
57:10
wanted to evict a tenant. That I would have to hire an attorney to get
Speaker 160
57:14
to get a court order to remove that person from that property, yes. Even if I'm not LLC. That's correct. And if I was LLC, I still, you still have to get a court order. That, that court order allows the sheriff to go and remove that person from the property if
Speaker 161
57:31
they fail to vacate and remove the personally from
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
57:36
the property. OK. So if the property is in my name. Then I could, I would, I could have them evicted. You would
Speaker 150
57:44
not need to hire an attorney if that if you own that property yourself. You're allowed to represent yourself. This, this bill would allow corporations to represent themselves, which is long-standing, long, long barred in this state. One follow up
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
57:57
just for clarification. If I'm LLC and I have
Several properties under my LLC. Am I still allowed to represent myself as a member of that LLC. It's my LLC correct? No, you would not. I could not do that. With this with this bill allow me to do that. Are you good? Representatives took care
of my question got your question. Uh, chair typically doesn't ask
a question, but, uh, Mr. Squires, what's the typical cost for someone to
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
58:38
hire an attorney who owes their own LLC and their own name and has to then hire somebody to do these kinds of things. That's gonna vary widely depending on who you represent.
Speaker 150
58:46
My, my firm represents a lot of banks and mortgage companies and unfortunately they're pretty stingy with how much they allow us to charge. But private attorneys do it hourly, they may do a flat fee. My experience is most attorneys are going to charge a flat fee. Again, I, I, I wouldn't want to guess as to what other attorneys may charge.
Speaker 153
59:04
I think were reasonable, uncontested, um, eviction would probably be somewhere between $500 and $1000.
Senator Caldwell, have you had any life experiences you want to share with the committee in
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
59:17
that regard. The normally it's costing us about $2000 to get someone evicted, and it's taking an additional 45. to 60 days, which is an additional 2 months' rent that we lose in the process. Members, any other questions?
Mr. Squires, thank you for being here today. Members, we have no one else who has signed up to speak for you. You're, you're dismissed. Thank you, Mr. Squires. We have no one else who signed up to speak for or against the bill, Sarah
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
59:50
Caldwell, you're recognized clothes for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Again this
limits the ability of closely held corporations. He's talking about corporations representing themselves in court, and we all know that you have to have an attorney to do that for years and years we've
been able to exact evictions on our own with the court case recently again in Placia County that changed that and caused us to go to circuit court, then we've had to hire an attorney, and, uh, but the real issue is if I owned it personally, I can represent myself, but since I do choose to put them in an LLC to help protect my family from lawsuit liability, then I cannot
represent myself. He, he mentioned the process of the legal, uh, Process in certain documents and being correct in everything we do, whether we do it personally or whether we hire an attorney to do it, all those documents have to have their I's dotted and T's crossed. We're not exempt from anything legally on that. It's just that we get to go in and do what we've done for years, represent ourselves, and I would ask for a good vote. Members said her Caldwell was close for his bill. We have a
motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor, please say aye. Any polls say no. And those habit. The bill has failed. Members, I
see Senator Tucker has come into the room. Sir Tucker, it looks
like you have 2 bills on our agenda,
Senate Bill 599. I'll take them in whatever for Senate is the first one up. So members, if you'll turn to Senate Bill 599. Senator Tucker, you recognized to present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair, Clark
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:01:57
Tucker State Senator District 14. Representative Hudson is the House sponsor of this bill, and I
want to welcome her to participate in this conversation, however she sees fit, um, she may, well, and you know, we could.
get you for obstruction. So, uh, what this bill does is eliminate interlocutory decrees and adoptions interlocutory is a fancy lawyer word for temporary. The adoption code was adopted in Arkansas in 1977, and this issue was complicated when in 1982 the Supreme Court issued an opinion that said an interlocutory decree was a was a final order in terms of it being appealable.
That creates an ambiguity in the law where a family can come to Arkansas, adopt an an Arkansas child and without a final decree of adoption with an interlocutory decree take the child to another state. Now there's a interstate compact for the placement of children that's supposed to govern those to make sure that the child is safe and taken care of if you don't have a final decree. But because that 1982 opinion in Arkansas said that an interlocutory decree was a final appealable order.
It's possible theoretically under the law for a family to come to Arkansas, get not get a final order, but have the ICPC treated as a final order and take that child to another state. As a matter of practice and interlocutory decree is a very rare thing. So this, this just clears up that ambiguity by eliminating the interlocutor decree. What we want is for there to be a final decree, because if there's a final decree, that means a court has fully vetted the adoptive parents, they've dotted all the I's. They've crossed all the
T's. They've done the home study. They've done everything that they need to do in order to make sure the child is being adopted with their new properly with their new family with the interlocutory decree, all of those things may Yeah Is that my timer, Madam Chair. We could make
it your timer. Oh, go ahead and finish your thought. No, it was
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:04:10
not a timer. Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. There's always comments from Southeast Arkansas, you know, Yeah
So, uh, with the interlocutory decree, not always, are all the ayes and tes I's dotted and T's crossed, and we want to make sure that's happened, so you come to Arkansas, you have a full vetting of the adoptive parents. You have a final decree, then that family can take the child home as if it was born to them. That's what we want. And so this bill eliminates an ambiguity in the law that is rarely used, and I'm, I'm not aware of any opposition to the bill. The bill was brought to me by Mr. JP Tribble. He helped me present a Senate Judiciary. I know he signed up. Speak on the bill.
He's with the court, I mean, excuse me, with the chair's discretion, he's welcome to come up, hang
on just a minute. Let me see if I have any questions for the bill sponsor. Any questions,
member seeing the questions, we do have an individual who's signed up to speak
for the bill, JP Trindle. Treble You'll identify yourself. You recognize to make your
Jp Tribble
Unverified
1:05:16
statement. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is JP Tribble, and I'm an adoption attorney practicing
here in Arkansas. I really don't have anything to add to Senator Tucker's comments this bill merely closes that loophole to ensure that all adoptions undergo the proper oversight and anytime a child should cross state lines preliminary to an adoption, it would ensure that all of those children come under the correct oversight of the interstate compact on placement of children. Um, uh,
with that, I will be willing to answer
any questions. Represent Crawford, you're recognized
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:06:00
for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, do you know, I mean, you used to, if we pass this. You would have had to wait 6 months. Do you know if there was ever a time. where the child was brought back to the courts and, and not placed with that family. So
Jp Tribble
Unverified
1:06:21
what happens is that the 6 month rule
still will be in place for final decrees for children who are over 6/6 months old. The whole purpose of that rule is if a child is placed at an older age and has certain has undergone certain traumas to make sure there's a good fit. The interlocutory decree state the the law, I believe it's under Arkansas Code 99214 states that an interlocutory decree, unless
another hearing is required by the court would automatically become final, no less than 6 months and no greater than a year, and what happens is in those instances, the adoptive parents, their rights do not fully. until that time period passes and a decree of adoption can be vacated in that time. What we're trying to ensure is that during that time the proper oversight uh would be exercised if the
child is placed out of state. Did that answer your question? Yes, thank you. So, however, to restate, yes, the six-month rule for older children would remain in place. DHS proposed a change to 99213 earlier in this session, which past clarifying that issue. Members, any other questions? Thank you for being here today. We appreciate your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair. We have
no one else who has signed up to speak for or against. Senator Tucker, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you,
Madam Chair. I'm closed. I appreciate a good vote. Members Tucker has closed her bill.
We have a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Representative Brown, you're recognized for a discussion. Thank you, Senator Tucker. I had an
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:08:11
adoption just a few weeks ago and had to reread the adoption code first
Speaker 156
1:08:15
time in a long time and oh my gosh, it's a, thanks for trying to fix it. Yes sir. Thank you, Representative Brown. Members, in other
discussion, seeing no further discussion all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed? Say no. The eyes have it, the bill is passed. Senator Tucker, while we have you down at the end of the
table, let's turn to Senate Bill 600. Thank you Senate Bill 600, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair Clark
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:08:37
Tucker, State Senator District 14. This, this bill was brought to me by former federal judge, retired
federal judge Leon Holmes. He was helping a a couple in Arkansas who bought a mobile home through an adhesion contract which is another fancy law work basically for a contract where one party has no bargaining power. What happened with that couple was The contract stated that any dispute between the buyer and
the seller would be would take place in Texas under Texas law in any kind of dispute between the buyer and the lender would take place in Utah under Utah law. Well, I guess, uh, these folks defaulted on their payments and the lender filed a lawsuit against them in Utah. They're not in a position to defend themselves against a lawsuit in Utah. The lender got a judgment in Utah and then sought to enforce it against them in Arkansas, which is Not a great outcome for this particular family, so this is a, this is a narrow bill, but what it says is if you're buying real property,
Or personal property that will be a dwelling unit and the value is $100,000 or less, so we're talking about not the most expensive homes in Arkansas, then if you buy it in Arkansas, and you stay in Arkansas, then you'll be subject to Arkansas jurisdiction and Arkansas law will govern the transaction. It's just to provide some protection for people who don't have aren't in the best bargaining position when they're buying their homes to make sure that if something goes wrong and they're sued, it's going to be Arkansas law that governs the transaction and will be subject to the
jurisdiction of the Arkansas courts, and for what it's worth, uh, I, I had lenders reach out. about this, we made an amendment to accommodate their concern. They were their request was reasonable in my opinion. They were concerned about someone buying a mobile home in El Dorado and taking it to Louisiana, for example, or buy it in Fort Smith and taking it to Oklahoma, so we put in language to say that if it's purchased in Arkansas and remains in Arkansas, then that's when this bill applies. And with that we accommodated their concern, and with that I'm not aware of any opposition to the bill.
We have no one who signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized to close for your bill. The only
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:10:39
complaints that I got on the Senate floor about this bill is that my colleagues wish that it would have been broader, so but we're trying to address this one issue for now and we'll see how it goes and maybe we'll take another crack at it later, but I think this is a good bill. It helps Arkansans and I would appreciate a good vote, Senator Tucker has closed
for his bill were the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion? Seeing no discussion all in favor of the motion.
Please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. You have
Speaker 57
1:11:07
passed your bill. Thank you very much, members. Thank you,
Madam Chair. Members were going back to our agenda and recognize Representative Shepherd. You have a series of bills. We'll start with Senate Bill 511, so I see no other senators in the room right now, so we'll start in with those who are running bills. Representing Shepherd, you're recognized.
The Senate member Senate Bill 511. Thank
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:11:46
you, Madam Chair, Matthew Shepherd, District 97, uh, the series of bills that
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:11:52
we have 4 or 5 bills this morning that are brought to us from the Arkansas Bankers Association, uh, Senate Bill 511, as you can see, uh, simply creates the offense of automated teller machine impairment. Members, any questions?
Seeing their questions, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:12:16
close for your bill. I'm closed for my bill and I
would move to pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion, seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. The
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:12:30
bill has passed. Members, let's turn to Senate Bill 512.
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:12:36
It Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Senate Bill 512, uh, just it uh
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:12:41
expands the offense of robbery and this is intending to allow someone who presents a note for a bank robbery to be charged with robbery instead of just theft. Members, any discussion, I mean, any questions, seeing no questions, we have no one
who's signed up to Speak 4 against the bill. You're recognized
closed your Senate Bill 512. I'm closed for the bill and moved to pass. Members, we have a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion, seeing no discussion of
the motion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. The bill is passed. Next, let's turn to
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:13:25
Senate Bill 513. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair, members, you can see this bill creates the offensive male theft and the offense of theft or or an authorized reproduction of a male receptacle, uh, male receptacle key or lock, and um The, the information I've been
over $6088 million in theft has been linked to mail theft related to check fraud and that the average loss nationwide is $44,000 per incident, um. Obviously crimes related to to male or federal offenses, uh, but this bill does give some uh local uh protections and allows uh for some um ability to prosecute these crimes under state law. Members, any
questions representing Collins, you're recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:14:30
you, Madam Chair. So I guess with this we already have some overlapping offenses here. We've got the federal law you mentioned. We've got just theft, which the male theft would be theft already and then we've got theft of a postal package, you know, in the, from the home, not in every situation male theft, I realized. Can you kind of tell me how you expect these to all
interact or they uh comparable levels, um. I mean, I realized that there'd be some choice and what's charged here, but how are all these Overlapping charge is going to work in practice,
you think? Well, I, and I haven't, I haven't looked at the
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:15:14
other crimes at the state level, but obviously this would be um a very specific offense, uh, I guess to some degree there's prosecutorial discretion, um, but this is, this is, uh,
seeking to address what is becoming a more rampant issue, and I think that uh um I don't see anybody from the bankers' association here right now, but I think that Also with regard to um why, why have state law prohibit this and why not just rely on federal law is that, um, oftentimes, uh, you know, there can be the discussion about which crimes do the feds prosecute versus which crimes the state prosecutes and given the fact that this is just
providing an additional opportunity. It's allowing our You know, so I ultimately think it will be something that will be uh very good and, and will help to create greater efficiency when it comes to the prosecution of these offenses. And you and I understand that with regard
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:16:16
to the federal, and I understand that there
are some situations where theft of the package won't apply because it has to be at the home, but I
guess what about just theft? So all I means male theft right now is already a crime. It's theft. It's the idea that with this we're making a a more severe punishment or is there, is there anything new being covered here that I'm missing? I'm not aware of, well,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:16:46
I, I mean, I guess there is something new from the standpoint of it's very specific to the circumstances that create this offense and you know, I would think that in part this is to make sure that uh that we do cover the waterfront when it
comes to these crimes because they, they, uh, are becoming more sophisticated in these schemes in which mail is, is, uh, uh, taken out of mailboxes and Individuals search through those to find checks to, uh, to further alter or to negotiate as if it was their own. And I think that the point of this is just to make sure that instead of taking a general theft statute, uh, that, that, uh, you know, potentially maybe someone could
could argue doesn't exactly fit the crime, and we're attempting to specifically create create um the criminal offense that addresses specifically what's occurring. And I'm not gonna ask a question, but I, I guess it may
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:17:45
also actually get prosecuted if it's a felony and if it were not, you're probably not going to get
anywhere with it. I think that's right. I mean, there's, there's
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:17:55
always, it's always the challenge. I mean, I alluded to it earlier is that um. You know, the interaction
between state and federal prosecutors generally the, the more serious offenses can get, uh, you know, maybe the state would let the federal prosecutors take the lead on that, whereas some of the offenses that are maybe not as serious just from the standpoint of of caseloads and what gets moved to the forefront oftentimes that may be left to the local prosecutors. And so I think this is just something that's trying to address a growing problem with a specific criminal offense to address that problem and then to allow our prosecutors to have a
A popular phrase around here, tool in the toolbox to be
able to uh to address this specific set of circumstances. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we have no one who's signed
up to speak for or against the bill he recognized clothes for your bill. I'm close for my
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:18:53
bill and I would move to pass. Members we have motion to pass on
the table the there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any posts say no, the I have it, the
bill is passed. Next bill is Senate Bill 514, Senate
Bill 514. Right Recognized Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:19:23
Bill 514, um, is just, it provides some additional language with regard to unlawful
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:19:28
possession of a skimmer. You can see that it very simply says that a second or subsequent conviction under this section is
an unclassified felony with a mandatory fine of not more than $20,000 and a mandatory term of imprisonment of at least one, but not more than 10 years, um, you know, I think that uh we all know that these types of crimes are um becoming more and more prevalent, the information that the bankers association has has given me is that the FBI estimates that skimming cost financial institutions and consumers more than a billion dollars annually and that some
of these tools that they are that they use some of the the skimmers that they're able to to utilize can be purchased very easily online, that they can be, uh, monitored, uh, remotely via Bluetooth. And uh that this is just strengthening um strengthening this um. Um This, uh, this law and you know, in a, in a world in which the use of debit and credit cards
is, uh, has become the common modes of payment. It's important that we ensure these payment systems and that we protect our citizens as best we can from these types of schemes. Members, any questions, seeing the questions, we have no one
who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you. Madam Chair, and I'm closed for the bill, and
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:21:00
I would move to pass. Members we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there
any discussion of the motion, seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:21:13
no. The eyes have it. The bill is passed. Members, let's drop down. I think I may have one, you have one more Senate bill, 597, so members, let's go to Senate Bill 597. You
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:21:26
recognized? Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 597, uh, just creates the,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:21:31
the offensive threat of harm upon a. financial institution employee. And uh again, pretty self-explanatory. Members, any questions?
Seeing no questions. I, uh, you no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. You recognized clothes for your
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:21:52
bill. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would move to pass
members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:22:00
all in favor, please say aye. And he opposed say no. The eyes have it. The bill is passed. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:22:06
This may be my last bill to run in House Judiciary, so thank you. Oh appreciate your consideration.
member Senator Irvin. was in the room, but I think Senator Ervin has stepped out of the room. We don't have anyone in here right now to present Senate Bill 325. Senate Bill 326. Let's turn the page. Um Senate Bill 487, Senator Ervins, Senate Bill 490 referencing Clowney. Would you want to wait on Senator Ervin to come back? Is she the only one left? Not quite. We've got some
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:22:44
more. OK, well, she was sitting there, so
let's just wait another minute if that's right.
Speaker 8
1:22:52
Uh, then let's drop down. Where did I lost representative Matt Brown.
Representative Betty, I've lost him. I can't do it. Well, hang on, let me get through all these. Representative. Represent, oh boy, that would get us in trouble. Uh, Representative Torres has a
House bill once again, I, we, we've called it, but We can't suspend the rules so it can't be heard today and then heard on the House floor we're going to drop that one down to deferred. Senate Bill 555. Senator Scott. Representative Hudson, I have you as a backup on that one. Are you ready to present Senate Bill 555 to amend the law concerning the offensive video voyeurism. Let me just a second. I had you written down as a
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:23:51
uh presenter. If while you look at that, let's move on down, uh, House Bill 1678 by
Representative Long that bill's been heard before. He's not in the room, but once again, we did not suspend our rules, so we can't hear it today and then on the floor today. So that will be dropped to deferred House
Bill 1948, the same announcement. The same announcement is that that bill is a House bill cannot be heard today and on the House floor, so, um, there's certainly not not any time. Representing Beatty has come back into the room, so we're going
to move back up to Senate Bill 539, Senate Bill 539. Representative Betty,
you're recognized to identify yourself and present Senate Bill 539 to
update and clarify certain portions of the law regarding the division of community corrections and the division of Corrections. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair, Representative
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:25:01
Howard Beatty District 95. If you'd bear with me
just one moment. This was the bill I was asked to run today for Representatives you'll hang on, we'll bring the bill to you. If that'll
help you. That would probably be a little help. We're
Speaker 210
1:25:14
here to help, you know, we're all hearts and flowers and house judiciary.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:25:25
No, not your bill. Ervin, you missed your chance. You've got to sit a
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:25:33
minute. Hang on, Emily's Senate Bill 590. I think that's on your, it's under Gilmore. It's the same as I've already called Senate Bill 539, so we've
got to take it up. Thank you All right, Senate Bill
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:25:49
539 that I now have in front of me, uh,
is to update and clarify certain portions of the law regarding the division of community correction and division of correction and to clarified references about the community correction centers. Um, basically what this bill does is it transfers the functions of the community, uh, correction center in the sex offender community notification assessments, uh, after the passage of the ProTECT Act, uh, the legislature authorized creation of an assistant director of programs and removed the duty of
managing programming at the Community Correction centers from the division of Community Correction leaving only operational in the security functions there at, at, at that department. They're currently 7 facilities that are dedicated to, uh, some combination of 90 day sanctions, judicial transfers, uh, administrative transfers and immediate sanctions are specialty court treatment. Those are Little Rock, West Smith. Osceola, Texture can of Batesville, Helena Malvern intake facility.
Uh, the secretary has already with the approval of the board of Corrections transferred the duty to operate the security functions of those centers pursue it to transformation and efficiencies Act of 2019. Uh, this bill fixes the statutory references uh to make the law match practice and make things less confusing for the practitioners in the field. It also transfers the appropriation and funding which could lead to some operational efficiencies and create opportunities. for shared workforce where the
facilities are located close to one another and we're shared workforces are appropriate. Uh, this change creates the opportunity for operational efficiencies, uh, stream, um, streamlining the intake process so that offenders who become ineligible to stay at a community correction center, uh, they do not have to go through um through a brand new intake process prior prior to their transfer to, uh, Arkansas Department of Corrections. Uh, the transfer of funding allows flexibility in the maintenance
personnel, uh, for non-programming functions and programming remains the mission of the center. It also transfers sex offender community notification assessments out of the division of correction, um, and those assessments, um, um, for prisoners and offenders in the community, and with that I'll entertain questions.
Members, any questions? Seeing the questions, we have no one who's signed up to speak for or against
the bill. You're recognized to close for the bill, Madam Chair, members of the committee, I am closed and
offer a motion do pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion, seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. The bill is passed. While we have you at the end of the table and before you scurry off someplace else. Let's get to Senate Bill 590. Senate Bill 590 and you're recognized to present that bill. Emily's bringing you a copy.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:28:55
Members Representative Howard Beatty District 95, um,
There's a Senate Bill 590. Basically, members, this is the same bill that I, I ran. I'm looking for the House bill number now. We had companion bills, a House bill and a Senate bill, and it was to create the recidivism reduction system within the Department of Corrections. So you've heard that bill, um, basically the same bill that I presented here and presented on the floor and was passed. I believe that'd be
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:29:23
House Bill 1931 1931, yes, ma'am. Uh, and with
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:29:25
that, I'll entertain any questions. members, any questions, seeing the questions. We have no one who's
signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized close for the bill, Madam Chair,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:29:37
members of the committee, I'm closed for bill off a motion to pass.
Members who have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion, seeing no discussion, all in favor
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:29:46
of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed? Say no. The ayes have it. The bill is passed. 620.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:29:57
Which one? This would be with Senator Irvin, you want to go ahead and join Representative
Beatty members, let's go to Senate Bill 620. Senate Bill 620. It has an amendment, so let's
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:30:10
get our amendment passed out. Have a copy of the agreement.
problem Members take a look at the amendment. Sooner Irvin, if you'd like to explain the amendment to Senate Bill 620, you're recognized. Go ahead and identify yourself for our record, please. Thank you,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:30:56
Madam Chair, members of the committee, Senator Missy Irvin, District 24. Uh, members, this amendment, uh, was working in coordination with,
um, the prosecuting attorneys Association, Laurie Camuris is here in the room. Thank you, Laurie, for helping us on this. Um, Emily Virgin, uh, is also working with us on this bill. Um, what the amendment does is just. clarifies Section 2 and Section 4 language making sure that they're consistent, just to allow the, the judges the flexibility to, um, understand the dynamics in play, if the juvenile was a victim of, um, human trafficking, and, and
that, how that can be taken into consideration, um, but we just needed to, uh, make sure that that language is more flexible for the prosecuting attorneys in Section 2 and Section 4. That's what the amendment does. membership
Speaker 11
1:31:49
heard explanation of the amendment. Representative Howard Beatty, District 9,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:31:53
I offer a motion to approve the amendment. We have a motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion
of that, seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye aye. Any opposed say no. The eyes have
it. You're now recognized to present your bill as amended. Thank you,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:32:11
Madam Chair. Thank you, members. Uh, basically, Senate Bill 620 is, um, the bill seeks to
protect child victims of trafficking in numerous ways. First, the the bill creates a new offense. for the um, uh, in the current human trafficking statute that criminalizes the recruitment of children to join a criminal organization or commit a crime, this is known as forced criminality and is a form of human trafficking. The bill also recognizes that child victims of
trafficking often commit crimes as a result of their trafficking. Under this legislation, if a child commits a crime against someone who trapped, raped, or sexually assaulted them. The bill requires that they remain in juvenile court. For an appropriate treatment and services, but they can receive an extended juvenile jurisdiction designation for treatment up to the age of 24. It also allows that if the child commits a violent crime as a direct result of being trafficked, uh, the adult court has the direction to deviate
from a mandatory minimum sentence or to suspend a portion of that child's sentence. Uh, the above sentencing relief will a victim of trafficking. It expands the current affirmative defense for trafficking victims who commit crimes as a result of their trafficking to encompass any nonviolent crime rather than the current limited list of crimes. There have been similar legislation that's been adopted in
Oklahoma, and with that, I'll
entertain any questions members, any questions? Seeing the questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized to close for
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:33:50
the bill, Madam Chair, members of the committee, I appreciate your
time today, and I offer a motion to pass. Do pass as
amended as amended members, we have a motion to do pass as amended on the table. Any discussion of the motion, seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. The motion carries the bill has passed.
Senator Ervin, I know I told you you'd stay down there for a bit, but I'm going to let, knowing that you have 5 more bills, I'm gonna let Senator Clark quickly present his two bills and get him on his way. Since you'll take up, I think a lot of the rest of our agenda. Members, if you'll turn back up at the top of our page, Senator Clark's here to present Senate Bill 325 and Senate Bill 326. We'll take those up and we'll come right back to Senator Ervin and Senator Ervin, thank you for
your letting us do that. Senator Clark, you.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:35:08
Thank you, Madam Chair, Committee. Alan Clark, State Senate District 7.
Chair
Unverified
1:35:18
Tiffany Wright, director for the division of Children
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:35:25
and Family Services. Senator Clark, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. The 325 and
326 we'll start with 325, but they're both, uh, Great uh welfare bills. We spent hours with all the stakeholders, uh, and we made 325 made several amendments for DCFS. Uh, we've made several amendments for the judges and
AOC and uh We, everybody seems to be happy with them. I'm going to let, uh, having said that, I'm gonna let uh. The director tell you what's in 325. That's OK.
Speaker 227
1:36:08
organized. Thank you. Um, so I am here to provide a technical assistance um related to these bills, um, Senate Bill 325 is around uh reinstatement
Speaker 234
1:36:16
of parental rights. It's requesting to
change, um, the law from 3 years to 2 years, um, we have, um, DCFS has been utilizing um this option for children and youth who have been in foster care for, um, a significant amount of time, um, and so we have been um looking back at family, um, members as well as parents to determine their
Speaker 235
1:36:39
appropriateness and if it's appropriate and working as a collaborative with the team and the child's treatment team, um, to determine involvement again with that child who's been waiting in foster care with no
goal, no permanency achieved. Um, the other
Speaker 234
1:36:56
part of this bill is related to the child maltreatment central registry, um, which is a not a publicly, um, accessible registry. It contains a confidential electronic records, um, in the state's child welfare system, and this bill is asking, um, that amended that only true investigative determinations of abuse, um, sexual abuse, sexual
exploitation will be maintained on the central registry. And that, um, as it's currently written true Investigative determinations of neglect would be maintained, would not be maintained unless the neglect occurred, um, by an alleged offender of an employment such as a school, child welfare
Speaker 235
1:37:36
agency employee facility employee, etc. Thank you for your remarks, uh, Senator Clark. Do you have any other remarks?
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:37:46
No, I'd be happy to take any questions. Are
Chair
Unverified
1:37:48
there any questions the committee, Representative Claney, you can ask for a question. Yeah.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:37:55
I've got a lot of concerns here. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I'm looking at
page 5. again, we're talking about parents whose parental rights were terminated. That's an incredibly high bar to meet. So if parental rights were terminated, that's a big, big deal in the state of Arkansas. My question for you just kind of on the ground as somebody who does these things. Can you just explain to me the difference between, so I'm looking at particularly lines, 7 through 10 on page 5. The court may grant custody of the child to the parent whose parental rights were terminated if the
court finds an award of custody to be in the best interest of the child regardless of whether a home study was conducted on the parent whose parental rights were terminated. Um, can you walk me through what that home study would look like and what we are giving up if this passes.
Speaker 240
1:38:43
Yeah, so currently, um, for these, um, youth and foster care when a parent, when
Speaker 227
1:38:48
we find a parent, we first start working with the team, the court team, so Cosa attorney at L Lite, and we're saying, hey, we, we have
Speaker 234
1:38:57
found this parent, we believe that they may be appropriate or they've come forward and they've called us and said, my life is different, it's been 5 years, and so, um, first and foremost, we would, we staff those cases as a team and determine kind of what's going on and then from there we would. working with the child's therapist, is it appropriate to do a reintroduction. What does that look like? And then when we get to the point of where we're considering allowing contact, um, visits in the home, we would do, we could do a full home
study or we could do a a safety assessment of the home, which is a walkthrough of the home looking for safety factors, making sure that it's appropriate, um, and that the home would not pose any risk to the child being there. visiting or that kind of thing. Follow up. You're
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:39:48
recognized, so just help me understand if this passes, what part of what you just explained would no longer happen. I think it would still happen. I
think that, um, well, this, sorry, I I guess to be clear, this says that you could award custody to the parent even if
a homestead didn't happen. What is the, what is the benefit from your perspective of somebody who does this work and has a very, you know, straightforward procedure that you always follow. Um, why would we take out or why would we allow for this step to be taken out of that homesteady.
Speaker 243
1:40:22
I think because um our home study is an in-depth look and assessment and analysis of that
Speaker 234
1:40:31
parent, um, a home study is um the, you know, social, what is the structure of the home, their history, and so we can get that and we probably already have that knowledge within our system having the case for a substantial amount of time and so I don't think we're necessarily losing anything. We're still DCFS would still be in the home. We would still be evaluating um and having a good understanding of what's going on. Many times these parents, um, we have all the history from the front end, and now we're gathering on the back end what's happened. I don't necessarily
Speaker 244
1:40:58
think that we're losing. Um, I just think this
builds an option. All right, thank you.
Speaker 245
1:41:07
Are there any other questions from the committee, further answer, uh, representative, these
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:41:12
children, uh, our children that are still in the system. years later, whether it be 2 years later, whether it be 3, whether it be 4, there have not been adoptable, so they're stuck in the system and where we have parents come back, it is a very rare instance, uh, but where parents
come back and show that they've changed. It's a chance for the child to leave the system if those parents have truly changed, and they're very diligent about uh how they work these cases. Are there any other questions from
Speaker 245
1:41:43
the committee? Seeing no further questions, we have
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:41:50
no one signed up to speak for against the bill, Senator Clark, you're to close for your bill. I appreciate
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:41:58
the committee's time. I think the bill does some
very important things comes from folks within the system and like I said, it has been worked out with, with all the stakeholders and I'd appreciate a good
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:42:14
vote. I'm closed. Members We have a motion to pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing their discussion, all in favor, please say aye. All opposed. I have it. Congratulations, you've passed your bill. Thank
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:42:28
you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, committee. SB 326.
I'm going to just say the same thing as I said about 325, uh, came from within, uh, child welfare system. Uh, we've
worked it out with the stakeholders, and I'm going to let the director, if she will tell you the technicalities of what the bill does. Just be sure to identify yourself for the record. Uh, good
Chair
Unverified
1:42:55
morning again. I'm Tiffany Wright, the director
Speaker 234
1:42:57
for the division of Children and Family Services. Um, so 3, um
26, um, puts, um, recognition and importance on family and child protection. And when a child can safely remain with a family that they should, it also says that if a child is removed from government intervention intervention. It should be temporary, and they should return to their family when safe and appropriate to do so. And while making those decisions, taking into consideration family integrity, the health and safety. a child, timely permanency decisions and um That's it. I'm sorry. And then
Chair
Unverified
1:43:35
the um other parts of this bill, um, Also amends um Uh Related
Speaker 234
1:43:45
to removal, um, court-ordered removals from Finn's cases, um, uh, indicating that a family is in need of services matter, a judge or a circuit court shall initiate a 70, only initiate a 72 hour hold if the juvenile, if the judge believes that the circumstances of condition are continuing to place this child, um, at risk
and that, um, DCFS would be allowed the opportunity to assess the safety and well-being of the child. Yes. Members, are
there any questions? Seeing their questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill Senator Clark, you recognized clothes for
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:44:24
your bill I will, Madam Chair, it's just been brought up by the House sponsor that he's not on here as the House sponsor. a minute. Yeah
We don't have, we don't have an amendment. I thought an amendment had
been sent, but Amendment has not been filed on either one of your bills. Um, go ahead and close for bill. Let's take a vote on your bill and uh I'll get with Representative Brooks and we'll go to our parliamentarian ask him to Can we? We weren't going to amendment.
What we were going to do is just go ahead and and send it up and then ask uh them to call on Representative Brooks to present it on the floor. I, I, we used to do that, so I'm assuming we still can. parliamentarian vines, if you're watching our committee Give us, give me a thumbs up that we can do that, but we've got Senator Clark here and I don't want to hold it up because the problem's going to be, well, we've already taken a vote. We'll have all of that. So let's
go ahead and take a vote on this one. I think we'll be
OK, but let's, if not, we'll get it figured out before long. So members, Senator Clark, if you'll go ahead and close for your bill. The
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:45:50
director has done a good job of telling you what's in the bill. there's no disagreement on it that we
know of, and I'd appreciate a good vote. members you've
heard, we have a motion to do pass on the floor, on the table and discussion of the motion. All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have
it. You've passed the bill, and we'll get that little parliamentary procedure
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:46:14
worked out, so don't worry. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you,
members of the committee. Members, before we turn, Senator Irvin Lowanis. We're going to go to Senate Bill 537. Representing Brown, if you'll come to the end of the table and present Senate Bill 537.
Speaker 156
1:46:41
Thank you, Madam Chair. Matt Brown, District 55. Uh, colleagues, 5:37, um, is a bill about recidivism, which is a word I can actually pronounce unlike scary fricata from earlier this week. Um, this is Bill. I'm actually excited about it. It's a bipartisan bill came out of the Senate unanimously, and this simply provides that when someone is on post prison release, so like parole or probation, they have a chance to earn some more good time in exchange for uh full-time employment. Uh, the bill provides that if a person on parole or probation is working at least the math comes out to
roughly like 30. hours a week on average for every month that they work in that full-time employment, they're eligible to get, or I'm sorry, for every 6 months they work on the full-time employment, they're eligible to get a month knocked off their sentence at the end of their parole or probationary period at the end of the day. Um, you know, there's an old joke about there's lies and their statistics, but the one thing that every single study I have read agrees on when it comes to recidivism is one of the biggest factors that positively affect recidivism rates are employment after someone is discharged from
prison. And so I think this bill, it just kind of gives folks that are trying to do, it gives them some encouragement and it gives them kind of an atta boy good job if they're able to hold down a job and gives them something to look forward to. Several states have already passed similar legislation. Arizona was one. Missouri was one, and they have seen substantial Decreases nerve recidivism rates and of course, you know, there's a lot of factors going into it, but I do think that encouraging this employment is one of those factors that really helps out. I'd be glad to answer any questions.
Members, any questions Oh, we've got, we've got a question. Here we go representative Tosha recognize. Is that 6 continuous months.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:48:25
How can that, no, sir, I think the way the bill is set up
Speaker 156
1:48:29
is kind of just for an every 30 period day, you're for 30 periods that you have full for a 30 period day of full-time work, you can get up to 5 days knocked off. So if you had a month, you're eligible for update credit and so on. But just doing the math the easier way I think of it is for a year of work, you get 2 months off. It's really kind of how I put it members, any other questions?
Seeing no further questions, we have no one who's signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized clothes for the bill. I'm closed, Madam Chair. I make a motion to pass. Members who have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion, seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:49:02
aye. Any post say no. The ayes have it. The bill is passed. Thank you, ma'am. All right, Senator Ervin, thank you for Stepping down so we can run
these and we're gonna pick back up and just start down the list. Of yours members, the next bill I have up is Oh Is that the 2nd 1 at the top, Senate Bill 435. Senate Bill 435 and you're if you'll identify
yourself, you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:49:44
committee, this, this is a bill that all of the health care providers, uh, worked on
together collectively and nurses, the nursing association, I think, led the charge on this, um, what this does is it just creates a criminal offense for aggravated assault upon a healthcare worker, um, but very specific to some of the things that Fortunately, that our healthcare folks are, are experiencing in some instances, um, and so that's clearly defined, uh, in the first section about what a healthcare care health care care worker is, um, and then what an
aggravated assault, uh, and that explained upon and in this next section in section 3. Um, and again, the reason why we're doing this is because, unfortunately, we've seen an increase in um, in assaults on our healthcare workers, um, It's, it's, it's really hard to see these nurses and these physicians that are working around the clock, particularly in our emergency rooms, um, being assaulted, um,
by patients, not OK. And so, uh, that's what this bill attempts to address. Members, any
questions? Seeing their questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill, Senator Irvin, you're recognized clothes for your bill. I'm closed. I'd appreciate a good vote. Senator Ervin has closed her bill. We have a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion, seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any posts say no. The
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:51:21
ayes have it. The bill is passed. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Members, if you'll turn to Senate Bill 487, Senate Bill 487, Senator Ervin, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 487. Thank
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:51:42
you, Madam Chair, members of the committee, 48788 and 90 are all part
of the juvenile judges package, uh, working with the juvenile judges and the administrative office of the courts, um, these, these bills have been vetted by, by them and brought forward, um,
Senate Bill 487, uh, what this does is clarifies destroying or expungement of juvenile records, um, and it, and it mirrors what is an existing in the adult code. Um, and so, uh, there's a date certain as to when these records, um, shall be expunged and which really, really helps with our, um, With our, our clerks and the folks that are keeping up with these records. Members, any questions?
Representing college, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:52:37
Chair. Uh, so I have, I think I have two questions. The one is in this new language you had here in B2 records of all other delinquency adjudications shall be expunged upon the individual's 21st birthday. Does that capture also what you're striking there in old 2, which is dependency neglect or families in need of services or what happens with those? because you had a list of
3 in the language being struck, and now you just have delinquency. a language being added. Are they meant to be meant to cover the same types of things or, or not? Yes, that's my understanding, OK. Follow up, please. Oh, you're and then the other question is about expunging, changing the meaning from destroyed to seal. Why, why,
why doesn't destroy work? Uh, because, OK, so this is what
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:53:28
is currently being done in the adult code. It just never got put into the juvenile code, uh,
but it's because everything is being moved from paper to electronic, and so, uh, they're able to seal those electronically, but as far as destroying the computers, uh, has become problematic. So, that's the explanation that's been given to me. It's because we're moving from paper to digital, so there's not a physical destruction, but they're able to seal it, um, they're able to seal it, but That's my understanding. And that's what the explanation that
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:54:04
has been given to me. One more follow up, OK, thank you. And, uh, and that makes sense. So is there any unsealing or is it sealed forever as if it were destroyed. Correct, yeah, that doesn't change. OK, thank
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:54:15
you. Any other questions from the committee? Saying no other
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:54:18
questions, we have nobody signed up to speak for or against. You recognized to close for your bill. Oh wait, we have one more question. No, yeah, all right, let's let her close for our bill, and then we'll take your motion. I'm closed. Thank
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:54:31
you. I'm closed. Thank you. We have motion to pass.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:54:36
A discussion on the motion, seeing no discussion on favor please say aye, all opposed. I have it. Congratulations, you passed
your bill. Thank you. Thank you so much. Senator Ervin, if you'll
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:54:56
move to Senate Bill 490. OK. Senate Bill 490, uh, is, um, another one of the bills in the juvenile judges package, um,
what this does is just allows the circuit court to waive, uh, a required fee that was created statutorily, uh, gives them latitude to waive that fee. Um, again, I think it's just making sure and recognizing that, uh, the, the situations of these kids that are juveniles and being able to waive that fee, I think giving that judge That discretion, I think it's a good thing to do. So that's what the bill does. members any questions? Seeing the questions, we have no one who
signed up to speak for or against the bill, you're
recognized clothes for your bill. I'm close. I'd
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:55:41
appreciate a good vote. Members Senator Irvin
is closed for a bill where the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Say no. I have it. You've passed the bill. Members, let's drop down to Senate Bill
488, Senate Bill 488. Thank you, Madam Chair. um, and then this is the last one of the
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:56:10
juvenile judges package and, um, it is to clarify the law that a juvenile is determined by the date of the offense and not the date of the adjudication. Members, any questions? See no questions. We have no one signed
up to speak for or against the bill. Senator Irvin, you're recognized clothes for the bill. I'm closed. Appreciate a good member Senator Urban is closed for a bill with
the wishes of the committee. We have a motion to pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in
favor, please say aye. And you both say no, the ayes have it. You have passed Senate Bill 488. Thank you. I think that do we have one more of yours? I think that's it. I think that's it. Well, thank you for being here. Thank you so much. heads in Europe. For Senate Bill 555.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:57:21
Thank you committee. Ashley Hudson, District 75. Colleagues,
I'm presenting Senate Bill 555, which is uh the lead sponsor, Senator Jamie Scott. All this law does is it extends the statute of limitations in cases of video voyeurism, um, and also makes an order of protection available to the victims of video of warriorism. We know that this is a crime that's sort of been on the rise and that um young people, both boys and girls have been victims of this, um, and, and so we are trying to extend.
Um, the statute of limitations for them to make those claims. Happy to
answer any questions. Representing college, you're
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:58:00
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. My only question is that domestic abuse with the sedition. Would So there's A, B, and C, right? So A is physical harm basically be sexual contact and see would be video voyeurism. A and B are between family and household members. But see video voyeurism isn't
and so any video voyeurism, even if it's, you know, someone who lives in a different town would be considered domestic abuse. Representative Collins,
I think that that's meant to capture also intimate partner uh video voyeurism, which
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:58:36
could include somebody who's not a part of your family. I have long thought that domestic abuse should probably be extended in that way as well. So this takes that step with regard to video voyeurism. OK. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we
have no one who has signed up to speak for or
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:58:56
against this bill. You recognized clothes for the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm closed for the bill and make a motion to
pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed say no. Tys have it
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:59:09
the bill is passed. Members hang on just a moment. Let
me look through our agenda. I think we have Taking care of everything, but let me look.
All right. Members We have covered our agenda for today. Um, And I'm going to assume those who have stepped out will be watching, so they'll know, but I'll send you out a text message. It's my anticipation that on Tuesday, the only thing we're going to be able to take up will be concurrences in Senate amendments is what I'm anticipating on Tuesday, so we'll have one more meeting, um,
we have nothing else left on our agenda. And uh unless the Senate send something down and we're instructed to hear it, it's my My, um, plan that we'll hear concurrence in Senate amendments. Are there any questions that going forward as to what we have left to do. You do have, don't forget to take your picture. We were all bright and shining as I remember on that cold, miserable, those who were there as uh representative Hudson
forgot she was, that's right, she was on her way. We were too fast. Take your picture, uh, you'll want to keep it to remember how cold and rainy and wet it was that particular day with that members, we are adjourned.
Agenda
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SB431 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; TO ELIMINATE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES; TO CREATE SAFE HARBORS FOR VICTIMS; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN SEXUALLY EXPLICIT PRODUCTS THAT RESEMBLE A CHILD.
REGULAR BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SB342 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES.
SB435 Irvin TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT UPON A HEALTHCARE WORKER; AND TO DEFINE "HEALTHCARE WORKER" REGARDING ASSAULT AND BATTERY.
SB364 Hester TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES RELATED TO CONTRACTORS.
SB277 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PERMIT THE FILING OF A NEW UNIFORM PETITION TO SEAL A MISDEMEANOR VIOLATION OF THEFT OF PROPERTY AFTER TEN YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE THEFT.
SB457 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELEASE FROM PAROLE OR POST- RELEASE SUPERVISION OF CERTAIN PERSONS WHO COMMITTED CRIMES WHEN THEY WERE UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN.
SB325 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AMEND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING REINSTATEMENT OF PARENTAL RIGHTS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE CHILD MALTREATMENT CENTRAL REGISTRY.
SB326 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 AND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO MODIFY GUIDELINES FOR A JUDGMENT MADE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF A CHILD; AND TO AMEND PROCEDURES AROUND REPORTING CHILD MALTREATMENT.
SB459 G. Leding TO AMEND THE MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT.
SB355 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS.
SB487 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW ON THE DESTRUCTION OR EXPUNGEMENT OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY RECORDS.
SB490 Irvin TO ALLOW A COURT TO WAIVE CERTAIN FEES WHEN A JUVENILE IS ORDERED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER.
SB511 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE IMPAIRMENT.
SB512 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ROBBERY AND AGGRAVATED ROBBERY.
SB513 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF MAIL THEFT; AND TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THEFT OR UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OF A MAIL RECEPTACLE KEY OR LOCK.
SB514 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A SKIMMER; AND TO INCREASE PENALTIES FOR THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A SKIMMER FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS.
SB537 Gilmore TO CREATE THE EARNING SAFE REENTRY THROUGH WORK ACT; AND TO CREATE A SENTENCE CREDIT PROGRAM FOR A PERSON ON PROBATION, PAROLE, OR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION TO EARN TIME CREDITS THROUGH EMPLOYMENT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB539 Gilmore TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE LAW REGARDING THE DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION AND THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO CLARIFY REFERENCES TO COMMUNITY CORRECTION CENTERS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1953 Torres TO PROVIDE FOR A SURCHARGE TO BE ASSESSED ON INMATE PHONE CALLS TO OFFSET THE COSTS OF SECURITY NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH INMATE COMMUNICATIONS.
SB555 J. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF VIDEO VOYEURISM; TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE OFFENSE OF VIDEO VOYEURISM; AND TO MAKE AN ORDER OF PROTECTION AVAILABLE TO A VICTIM OF VIDEO VOYEURISM.
HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE CIVIL PENALTIES.
HB1948 Joey Carr TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE OFFENSE OF NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS COMMITTED; AND TO REPEAL THE ABILITY OF A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OR DEFENDANT TO SUBPOENA CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS BEFORE A HEARING OR TRIAL.
SB488 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSIDERED TO BE ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT.
SB590 Gilmore TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB597 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THREAT OF HARM UPON A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EMPLOYEE.
SB458 G. Leding TO REQUIRE A COURT TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF FACTORS SUCH AS TRAUMA AND INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM ON A PERSON WHO COMMITTED A CRIME AS A MINOR DURING A TRANSFER OR SENTENCING HEARING.
SB599 C. Tucker TO ELIMINATE INTERLOCUTORY DECREES OF ADOPTION; AND TO AMEND THE REVISED UNIFORM ADOPTION ACT.
SB612 Dees TO CREATE A PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION AGAINST A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM THAT CAUSES HARM; AND TO IMPOSE A CIVIL PENALTY ON A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM THAT KNOWINGLY AND WILLFULLY CONTRIBUTES TO A MINOR'S SUICIDE OR SUICIDE ATTEMPT.
SB620 Irvin TO PROVIDE A SAFETY VALVE AND APPEAL RIGHT FOR A MINOR DEFENDANT WHO IS ALSO A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013.
SB600 C. Tucker TO REGULATE CONTRACTS; TO MANDATE CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN CONTRACTS; AND TO CLARIFY PROPER JURISDICTION FOR CERTAIN CONTACTS.
SB629 Caldwell TO ALLOW AN OFFICER OF A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION TO REPRESENT THE CORPORATION IN COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER PROCEEDINGS.
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1033 McCullough TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND WARRANT.
HB1141 R. Scott Richardson TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE AND INJURIOUS MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.
HB1136 Achor TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PROHIBIT A COURT FROM GRANTING A UNIFORM PETITION WHEN A PERSON IS SUBJECT TO AN ACTIVE WARRANT OF ARREST.
HB1430 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991.
HB1431 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; AND TO PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION ENJOINING A PARTY FROM ENGAGING IN COURSE OF CONTROL OR DISTURBING THE PEACE EX PARTE.
HB1481 Long TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROVISION OF MATERIAL AID AND SUPPORT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS.
HB1535 Duffield TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF RAPE OF A CHILD TWELVE YEARS OF AGE OR YOUNGER; TO PERMIT THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO ADMINISTER MEDROXYPROGESTERONE ACETATE TREATMENT FOR CHEMICAL CASTRATION.
HB1553 Ray TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS.
HB1655 Long TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
HB1473 Pilkington TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS.
HB1676 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE STATE OR A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE; AND TO ALLOW FOR INCOME TAX REFUNDS TO BE SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT BY JUDGMENT CREDITORS.
SB321 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND.
HB1823 Duffield TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AND
NONCONSENSUAL EDITS ACT OF 2025; AND TO CLARIFY THE RIGHTS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL AFFECTED BY NONCONSENSUAL ACTIVITIES INVOLVING INTIMATE DIGITAL FORGERIES.
HB1765 Underwood TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN THE THIRD DEGREE; AND TO AMEND THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION ENHANCEMENT BASED ON PRIOR ACTS.
HB1871 Gazaway TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS WHO REPEATEDLY VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THEIR PROBATION OR SUSPENDED SENTENCE.
HB1664 K. Brown TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS AND OTHER TESTING IN AN INVESTIGATION INVOLVING ALLEGED ABUSE UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1306 Furman CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP; AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR VOLUNTEER SECURITY PERSONNEL IN A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP.
HB1754 Gonzales TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.
HB1663 K. Brown TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMONY FOR A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED AN ACT OF CIVIL OR CRIMINAL DOMESTIC ABUSE WHEN THE VICTIM WOULD BE THE PAYOR OF ALIMONY.
HB1947 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA.
HB1885 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER INVOLVED IN A DEADLY USE OF FORCE INCIDENT TO BE PLACED ON TEMPORARY LEAVE AND ATTEND THERAPY.
HB1057 R. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY CERTAIN
Richardson PERSONS; AND TO PERMIT THE RESTORATION OF THE RIGHT TO POSSESS A FIREARM TO A NONVIOLENT FELON.
HB1978 GazawayTO ADD AN ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIP TO THE SEVENTEENTH DISTRICT OF THE STATE DISTRICT COURT SYSTEM.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Apr 10, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Carol Dalby Chair
Unverified
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 15
Speaker 24
Zach Baumgarten
Unverified
Speaker 33
Chair
Unverified
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 43
Speaker 11
Speaker 57
Speaker 58
Speaker 59
Speaker 62
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
Speaker 76
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
Speaker 102
Speaker 101
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
Speaker 104
Speaker 107
Speaker 111
Speaker 114
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
Speaker 47
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
Speaker 140
Speaker 150
Speaker 153
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
Speaker 156
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
Speaker 160
Speaker 161
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Jp Tribble
Unverified
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
Speaker 8
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Speaker 210
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
Speaker 227
Speaker 234
Speaker 235
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
Speaker 240
Speaker 243
Speaker 244
Speaker 245