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
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
For anybody that's watching, yesterday the House did not vote to suspend the rules. So if you have a House bill in this committee, your House bill is dead. Can't get through here and get to the Senate and get to the Senate Judiciary. So for any House member, 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 three bills left, and it just so happened all three of those individuals did not vote to suspend the rules. so
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
0:29
their bills cannot make it 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-referred 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
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
0:58
us. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. Joshua Bryant, Senate District 32. So after Senate Bill 31 passed this committee Tuesday,
Representative Collins brought up an issue inside the bill that was an oversight. There was a line 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 Representative Collins for catching that. We want to make clear and give affirmative defense for these victims of all ages.
So the amendment 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. Are there any questions? Seeing no questions, we have one person who has signed up to speak against the bill. Mr. Rosenzweig, you're recognized, to
come to the end of the table and speak against the bill.
Speaker 15
2:12
Jeff Rosenzweig, Arkansas 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 child sex doll business. This is likely to be held unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court case of Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, which said that things that did not portray, that were not a real child, could not be prohibited as a matter of obscenity, etc.
And so here you have an inanimate object, and there are some states that have passed similar laws. Those laws have not yet been tested fully in court. Members, any questions of Mr. Rosenzweig? Seeing no questions, thank you for
being here today. Senator Bright, you're recognized to close. Thank you, Madam Chair. House Bill 1877
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
3:24
that Representative Meeks passed out of this committee out of the House and out of the Senate committee on the floor today in the Senate
addresses the same thing with images that are indistinguishable from a child. These dolls, the testimony in the Senate of these dolls is indistinguishable from a child except for that it is not a child. So AG has 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 am closed.
Members, Senator Bryant has closed for this 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. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. You have passed the bill. Senator Bryant, you have, I think, two more bills. Without objection, I know I just promised Representative Gonzales, he was next. But since I have you right down there, I'm going to 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. You're recognized to present
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
4:42
Senate Bill 277. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. Joshua Bryant, State Senate, District 32. Remember, Senate Bill 277 is, I find it probably a little nuanced or hard to describe, but in 2023, this body made theft an enhanceable offense. What we failed to do is add that into the Comprehensive Criminal Sealing Act of 2013 to ensure that those that do this, that had the potential for it to be enhanced,
don't thereby come in and get it sealed. So what this bill does is adds that look-back period for the misdemeanor violation of theft of property that we passed in 2013 into 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. In visiting with the The prosecutor is that this body just recently, this year, passed, outlined the procedures
for putting under advisement for our courts to use. So that defendant that steals minor items, misdemeanor items, can be put on probation and then have that record, not have that theft go on their record at that time. But the enhanceable act of an 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 no 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 Zach Baumgartner. Am I? I'm close. You're welcome to go to the end of the table
if you identify yourself for the record. You're recognized 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 it if you'd keep it about two minutes or
Speaker 24
7:03
so. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you, committee, for having me.
Zach Baumgarten
Unverified
7:07
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 veterans section of the Arkansas Bar Association. I'm here today, though, as 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 seal 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, 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 bring up the, in the bill you guys can see before you, you could negligently kill someone, commit third-degree battery, expose yourself to this committee, sexually assault someone in this committee, or commit domestic battery and seal those records twice as fast as you would if you stole a bag of chips from downstairs. cares. 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 in active 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. Bonnie and Clyde don't come to us to seal their records. These are folks who trying to get their life back on track, get things together, reenter society, and by clearing their record they can able to do that. Otherwise we kind of force them into the sides of society and oftentimes that can cause them to re-offend. 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. Lee, and Greg Parrish. Y'all might as well double team us today. If you'll identify yourself,
Speaker 33
9:34
you're recognized. Greg Parrish, Executive Director, Arkansas Public Defender Commission. Tina Bowers-Lee,
Attorney at the Arkansas Public Defender Commission. Madam Chair, members, just, and Ms. Tina and we'll 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 could assist people to get their records expunged for expungible 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 in taxes, being a productive citizen.
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 and two years later wants to expunge that shoplifting, and it happens, and then two 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. 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
Chair
Unverified
11:24
upon that. 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. ATN 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. 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 seal their conviction. And so that's another unintended consequence of this bill. Representative Shepard, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
13:20
Madam Chair. If y'all could, if you know off the top of your
head, what is the 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 theft of anything of value, whether it's $1, $5, or whatever is going to be a misdemeanor theft.
Speaker 33
13:45
Misdemeanor theft is a Class A misdemeanor. It carries up to one year in the county jail and or a fine not to exceed $2,500. Second offense, felony theft. If it's escalated from the misdemeanor. second offense misdemeanor to a felony is a de-felony now that this body, the legislature
made it a second offense felony, carries up to six years in prison, and or a fine not to exceed
Speaker 43
14:10
$10,000. Is there a distinction based on value of the items? No. No. Okay.
Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, thank you for being here today. And
the last person signed up to speak against the bill,
Speaker 15
14:31
Mr. Rosenzweig. Jeff Rosenzweig, Arkansas, Association of Criminal Defense Liars, and just to dot by
reference everything my predecessors just said, and I will point out one other thing. The statute that Senator Bryant referred to that passed this year is not mandatory. It's essentially potluck as to whether or not a judge wants to go along with it. It's just not a, if the judge doesn't want to do it, there's no enforceability factor on it. Members, any questions?
Seeing no questions, thank you for being here. Senator Bryant, you're recognized to close for your bill.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
15:09
With the chair's permission, I'd like to bring up the Prosecutor's Association just to address some of the issues, Mr.
David Etheridge. Well, we're at the closing part. We typically
Speaker 11
15:26
don't allow any additional, 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.
Speaker 57
15:43
Thank you, committee. I'm going to allow a little leeway, but you've got two minutes of leeway.
Speaker 59
16:16
prosecuting attorney from the 14th Judicial District. Chris Walton, Saline County Prosecutor. There's no doubt that we have habitual thieves that come in, get caught, serve a quick sentence, turn around, and then steal
Speaker 62
16:40
again. It is a problem throughout the county.
What they said, generally speaking, about the law is accurate. I'm not disputing any of that, 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 offenders, and they do know how to play the game. That's all that
I would add to that. Representative Crawford,
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
17:09
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. 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 17, 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 stealing. Is that correct? I don't
want to, we're not here to argue.
I will say to you that it's not just a few people. We see this on a regular basis, unfortunately. And I think one of the things 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 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're recognized for a question.
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
18:20
Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Etheridge, we just talked. And this is going to, it's totally against what you and I just talked about. Isn't that correct? No, ma'am. I
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
18:32
think it goes back to discretion, ma'am. It'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. And that's what y'all have called us to do, to protect the public. 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.
Representative Shepard, you're recognized for a
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
18:58
question. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I'm trying to recall, because the law on sealing records over my 14 years here has changed a lot. There have been different laws, and
we've tried to simplify. But when a person files a petition to seal, is the
prosecutor's office notified of that petition, and do you have the opportunity to object to that petition or provide additional information?
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
19:26
Yes, sir, we do. They do come to our 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? Seeing no further questions, thank you, gentlemen, for coming to the end of the table. Senator Bryant, you're recognized to close for your bill.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
19:58
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mitty. Thank you for considering this. I think as I talk 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 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 sealing statute says. So this body said a misdemeanor has a 10-year look back to be enhanceable without the felony for these type of offenses.
And so I would say most of these offenses within the exact same attempting to mend 1690-1405B, 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 in the courts. So 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, 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 am closed. Members, Senator Bryant is closed for his bill. What are the wishes
of the committee? We have a motion to do pass. Is there any discussion of
the motion? All in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. No. The no's have it. The bill has failed. Thank you, committee. Mr. Bryant, you have one more real quick.
Senate, excuse me, members, Senate Bill 355. If you'll turn to Senate Bill 355. You
identify yourself, you're recognized to present
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
22:03
your bill. Thank you, committee, Joshua Bryant, State Senate District 32. Senate Bill 355 is attempting to add in the obstruction of justice code, somebody having
received an in-person service of subpoena issued by a judge or 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 seeing is they issue their subpoena and people are not showing up. Now typically that is just a, I'm losing my train of thought here, typically that is just where the courts issue a contempt and, again, issue another subpoena, have a show cause
hearing, and there's a lot of ambiguity in the process, and the courts are not getting people to show up. So the ask was to allow, 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 judge that brought this to me to ensure the language was clear enough to capture
these types of offenses. So with that, I will be glad to take any questions.
Members, any questions? Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
23:22
Thank you, Madam Chair. So why is contempt not an adequate tool in the toolbox to handle the situation?
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
23:29
Well, they're not showing up the first time, and they're not showing up the second time. And then when they do show up for that show-cause hearing, there's a lot of ambiguity in the process which got them there, and it's just not an effective tool to get them there. So having the tool to prosecute and have outside of the rule, the courts, a rule and 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. Are you recognized?
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
24:03
Um, doesn't the contempt charge, I mean, what, what is the contempt, it's a misdemeanor charge, criminal charge as well too, right? Is it not? I,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
24:10
I believe it's just in the court's rule. I'm not sure if that, what holds. Okay.
Thank you. Members, any other questions? Representative Hudson, you're recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
24:23
you, Madam Chair. 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?
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
24:31
In a criminal matter, if they are summoned by the courts to appear and they do not show up, they can be obstructing justice. Follow-up. You're recognized. So just
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
24:39
to be clear, this 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. This is somebody who was
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
24:49
asked by the court to come to the court in a criminal matter to adjudicate an issue that refuses that order of
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
24:57
the court. Yes. Members, Representative Moore, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Senator Bryan, 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. Does that knowingly fails include obstructions such as their car breaking down or weather or travel, unfortunate circumstances? That
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
25:27
would be addressed at the trial for such an obstruction charge.
And so if they can convince the judge that this is the issue of why it did not appear, the judge can take that under
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
25:42
advisement. Representative Unger, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator, I think what you're trying to get at here is the issues that's clogging up the court calendar so badly, of people just not showing up, and this is to help move the process along. Would you agree? I would agree, Representative Unger. Thank you, sir. Thank you, ma'am. Members, any
other questions? Seeing no further questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Senator Bryant, you're recognized to close for your bill.
I am closed, committee. I appreciate it. Members, Senator Bryant, it's closed for a bill. What is the wishes of the committee? We have a motion to do pass
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
26:14
on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. No. The no's have it. The bill has failed. Members, let's go to the top of our agenda.
Representative Gonzalez, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 342. Members, let's go to Senate Bill 342. Do you just file yourself for
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
26:56
the record? You're recognized. Representative Justin Gonzalez, District
Speaker 101
26:59
89. Members, I think this one's going to be a
Speaker 102
27:04
whole lot easier than the last ones we've
Speaker 101
27:07
done. We're counting on you. So if somebody's dog kills your livestock, you have a few options. You can shoot the dog. You can kill the dog before it ever gets to your livestock. We're not changing that in this bill. You can also, if you know who the owner is, take them to court. We're not changing that. What we're doing is adding and other livestock is the new language added to sheep, goats, cattle, swine, and poultry.
And allowing for treble damages. That's it. Members, any
questions? Seeing no questions, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized to close for your bill. I'm closed. Make a motion to do pass.
Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
27:58
in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. You have passed the bill.
Members, I don't see Senator Irvin or Representative Johnson in the room, so we're going to Senate Bill 364. Senate Bill 364, Representative Womack, you're recognized to come to the end of the table. If you'll identify yourself, you're recognized to present Senate Bill
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
28:27
364. Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee. This is a very simple bill that establishes requirements for contractors who wish to bring a civil action for breach of contract or quantum maruette.
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
Speaker 104
28:51
you've entered into this We want to hear you say it all over again. You did really good.
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
28:57
I studied. I actually studied Latin. Anyway, what this does, I'll tell you the reason we need it. I'll just give you an example of some issues this will solve. A young contractor who gets involved in a job you know, let's say pour a slab out back. We do that. 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. 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. They can only take this legal action if they've squared with the contractor licensing board and paid all appropriate fines. So it simply allows people an avenue that make a mistake. Or even another one I thought of while sitting here, is while I've been up here legislating, perhaps my license renewal came in and it lapsed. And I've bid 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's licensing board to square things,
pay whatever fines they think are appropriate, and carry on
Speaker 107
30:23
doing my work. So, happy to answer any questions. Members, are there any questions? Seeing
no questions, we have no one who's 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. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes 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 Letting? I'm sort of letting the amendments being passed out, but I think we'll go ahead and let you
Speaker 111
31:32
explain the amendment. I believe 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. Aye. Any opposed say no. habit. The amendment has been adopted. You are now recognized to present your bill as amended. Thank you, Madam
Speaker 114
31:57
Chair. State Senator Greg Letting, District 30. I haven't been in front of House Judiciary in quite some time, so this is nice.
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
32:03
I'll be real brief. 457 is one of a package of
juvenile justice reforms that we've been running this session. Senator Irvin and I have been carrying them on the House end. Representative Hudson and Representative Clowney are carrying down here on the House. With 457, just real quick, back in 2017, Senator Irvin 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 Nix 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 with 457 is that instead of a prosecutor having to sign off, um, on this person having the parole discharged, uh, 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, uh, 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, um, prosecutors are busy.
We want to make sure that people know, uh, what the timeline is going to be on this issue. Um, 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 this end of the building, it did come off the floor unanimously. Happy to take questions. Members,
are there any questions? Seeing no questions, we have no one who has 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 has closed for his bill. What are the wishes of the committee? We have a motion due 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. Aye. Any opposed, say
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
33:53
no. The ayes have it. The bill is passed. Senator 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. I'm doing great. You're doing wonderful. Thank you.
We'll pass the amendment out. You're recognized to present your amendment. Thank you,
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
34:20
Madam Chair. State Senator Greg Letting, District 30. The amendment just adds Representative Hudson as the House sponsor.
Members, you've heard an explanation amendment. What are the wishes of the committee? We have a motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion of the motion? Seeing none, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Ayes have it. Motion has been adopted. You are now recognized to present Senate
Bill 459 as amended. Thank you, Madam Chair. This one is even more straightforward.
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
34:45
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 nine, 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, 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 recognized to close for your bill.
I'm closed and I'd appreciate a good vote. Members, Senator Letting has closed 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.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
35:28
Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. You have passed your bill. Thank you, Representative Hudson. It was solely her being down there as your sponsor. Believe me, I'm well aware. Let's see, you have...
Senate Bill 458. You have one more. One more. Members, Senate Bill 458. One less radio. Members, while representing Clowney's going to the end of the table, not to jinx Senator Letting's 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... Aww. Aww. 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
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
36:24
Chair. State Senator Greg Letting, District 30. Nicole
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
36:27
Clowney, State Representative, District 21. You're recognized. Thank you,
Speaker 114
36:31
Madam Chair. The Senate Judiciary Committee really helped us make this a much better
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
36:35
bill than it was when we 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, again, typically in juvenile courts, judges consider factors of trauma and 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 458 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. Okay, there we go. And this is the last one. Members,
any questions? Seeing no questions, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized as close for your bill. I'm closed and I'd appreciate a good vote. Members, Senator Letting, the birthday boy, is closed 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,
Speaker 114
37:41
Madam Chair. Thank you, Representative Clowney. 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 Dees, you're 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
38:37
Thank you, Chair. Thank you, members. State Senator Tyler
Deese, District 35. You're recognized to present your amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 612 Amendment has some technical nature, some cleanup 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.
Speaker 11
39:11
Members, you've heard an explanation of the bill, what are the 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
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
39:30
adopted. You're recognized to present your bill as amended. Thank you, committee. So Senate Bill 612, as amended, is really a framework 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 had a tragic incident, 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 online. Screen grabs and pictures 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 Venmo's 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-wrenching as as parents. And so I do believe social media and big tech are trying their best in a lot of cases
to prevent some of these things. However, we want more and we demand more. And so we're trying to work on that. Well, what this bill does is helps create a private right of action, the ability for parents, if their children have been harmed online, it creates the ability for a suit to be filed. And that's all it does. If they can prove harm to their children, there's liability to the social media companies 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. Members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Is there any questions by members? Representative Collins, you're
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
41:44
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I support what you're doing here with this. I kind of want to make sure that, you know, it's going to hold up, obviously, with a lot of these, the constitutional challenges come. Have you based this on any language that's been either successfully defended in other states, or are there any models?
Or I guess, what kind of assurances do you have
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
42:08
that this will be all right? Sure. I actually anticipate there's probably going to be lawsuits from these companies, I would assume. But I can also say that, you know, this body, we took, we have two bills that are kind of out there, 611 and 612. 612 is really focusing on the private right of action and very tailored into this focus. But I can tell you this legislative body, three years ago, last session, we were one of the first in the country, if not the first in the country, to step in this direction.
And I'll adamantly admit that when leaders go first, we don't get everything right. And in fact, every state that has followed, dozens of states that have followed 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 court cases, to make sure that we try to get the best bill possible. Follow up, please. You're recognized. So do
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
43:00
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 been used? I don't have that. I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. Thanks.
Representative Hudson, you're recognized for a
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
43:12
question? Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Senator, for bringing legislation to try to protect
kids. I appreciate that. I'm trying to understand a little bit better, though, how this functions. So on page three, 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 we know that they have designed something that causes an eating disorder, for example? That's
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
43:53
a great question, and this framework would allow a civil penalty
to have that day in court to be able to prove that, and it would take a jury 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? Representative Clowney, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
44:16
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to follow up, Senator Deese, on Representative Hudson's question, of course, now I've lost it. But that section that talks about developing an algorithm, so I'm looking at bullet point four. 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. I understand and agree with you the reason that you're trying to pass something like this is because that is in fact what all social media
companies do. But that feels like a huge undertaking to change that algorithm. Will this go into effect? 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 in compliance with this? Sure. I'm
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
45:07
not exactly sure on the timeline. I would believe it would follow just with our normal process of bills and after we sign EDI. But I think I would also point out that there's just 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 continue through the bill, that suicide and attempted suicide have more stringent penalties and focus or potential damages. And so it does try to outline a distinct difference between maybe an eating disorder or some other addictive measures and then also a different level for suicide and extreme harm.
Representative Moore, you recognize for a
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
45:54
question? Thank you, Madam Chair and 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 platforms, obviously, to generate ad clicks and revenue, et cetera. What is the difference between sustaining an addiction versus just driving traffic?
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
46:28
Could you help me understand that? Sure. I would point you to Senate Bill 611, which is also in front of our body as well. It has very clear definitions about compulsory, contemporary compulsory addiction standards, which are used, I think, pretty readily across definitions in other law and other studies. And so I think that would be used definitely to make an argument around addiction when it's an issue. Members, any other questions?
Seeing no further questions, we have no one who is signed up to speak for or against the
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
47:06
bill. You're 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 that this would bring a tool 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 chance to have their voice be heard. And so I'd appreciate a good vote.
Members, Senator Dees is closed. First bill, what are the missions of the committee? We
have a motion to do pass as amended. Motion to do pass on the table as amended. Any discussion of that motion? Representative Hudson, you're
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
47:47
recognized for discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Senator Dees, 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, 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 pretty substantial liability.
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. Aye. Any opposed, say no. No. The ayes 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 your bill.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
48:42
Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee. I'm Ronald Caldwell, Senate District 10. Senate Bill 629 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, for a landlord to evict a tenant
that has not paid their rent, 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 Palaski County a few months back, now we have to 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 of liability issues, many people own it in either an LLC or an S-Corp, and now we have to hire an attorney.
So our expense has gone from about $75 to about $2,000 or $2,200 to have that cause of action. And this would allow that person who owns that corporation or S-Corp or LLC to represent themselves only in the matter
of eviction. Members, you've heard an explanation of the bill. Are there any questions
of Senator Caldwell? Seeing no 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
Speaker 140
50:33
to speak against the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee. I'm Aaron Squires. I'm here
Speaker 150
50:38
representing the Arkansas Bar Association. Senator Caldwell correctly stated that this bill would allow a non-attorney to appear in court, file pleadings, make arguments, 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 the attorney, excuse me, 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. There's constitutional questions associated with this. The Arkansas
Supreme Court has exclusive rulemaking ability, and that is confirmed by Amendment 28. By allowing this bill to pass, then there will most definitely be constitutional challenges, which I do not believe would survive. 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 that corporation is a party. And so in the event that it's 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
proper administration of justice as long as it's within that corporation's interest in what they're doing business as. So I do not believe this bill is appropriate. It's unconstitutional. I think It creates a lot of problems for the
administration of justice. Representative Shepard, you're
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
52:18
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I guess I'll ask this question of the
witness, but Senator Caldwell could respond in his closing. Do we, are there any other examples under Arkansas law where we allow this type of action on behalf of an entity?
I know that in the past, sometimes 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 responding to a garnishment that's been issued to an employer. I know there have been complaints through the years about having to hire an attorney
to do that. I'm just not sure, so I'm curious as to are there other areas of the law where we allow this?
Speaker 150
53:05
The statute in question specifically allows a non-attorney to examine and ensure title. That is it. All the other exceptions allow the corporation to do certain things as long as they have an attorney representing them in court. So while responding to a writ of garnishment, you know, could be allowed and appearing in small claims court could be allowed, eviction cases by their very nature can be adversarial. 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 and
Speaker 152
53:42
experience that's required of an attorney.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
53:47
Representative Moore, you recognize for a question? Thank you, Madam Chair. If this law were to pass, what sort of precedent would this set for potential other corporations wanting similar laws and
Speaker 140
54:03
non-licensed attorneys practicing in court? I think that's a high likelihood of that.
Speaker 150
54:08
I mean, there's always a concern about expansion of the practice of law to non-attorneys. And attorneys' practices are attacked regularly in sessions and seeking to allow non-attorneys to do certain things.
this particular proceeding, this particular bill would definitely create potential problems for further expansion
Speaker 153
54:26
as well as the issues I already explained. Representative Hedson, you're
recognized for a question. Thank you,
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
54:34
Madam Chair. Mr. Squires, I wanted you to expand a little bit on the statement you made
in your introductory remarks, talking about some of the potential liability that could apply to the corporation if an officer of the corporation appeared instead of an attorney. For the benefit of the committee, could you sort of explain the difference between the obligations of an attorney representing a client in court versus the obligations of an officer of the corporation and why that's dangerous to the corporation?
Speaker 150
55:04
Certainly. So say, for example, that you're in a contested case and interrogatories and requests for production of documents are propounded to the other side, which is discovery. That attorney doesn't respond. Excuse me, that corporate officer doesn'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. And so 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 dealing with a non-attorney, While, of course, they're required to hire an attorney to defend themselves. Well, they can defend themselves, but typically hire an attorney as well. So, again, I think 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. Representative Brown, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Matt Brown
Unverified
56:08
Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Shepard, I think, kind of hit the nail on the head. My question was, my recollection is it's
Speaker 156
56:14
a black letter law, but of course the Supreme Court is the only entity that can regulate the practice of law in this state. That is correct. 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? That's correct. And so here we would be essentially
Speaker 150
56:34
sticking our nose into their business to rewrite their rules. That's correct. And again, I think that invites constitutional challenge to this bill if it was passed.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
56:40
Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Tosh, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not an attorney, so I'm kind of seeking information here. But are you saying that if I'm a landlord that I'd have to hire an attorney to go to small claims court? No, this is
Speaker 150
56:58
only eviction cases, and they're not pending in small claims court. They can be in district court or in circuit court. So
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
57:05
if I wanted to evict a tenant, then I would have to hire
Speaker 160
57:09
an attorney? 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 court order allows the
Speaker 161
57:24
sheriff to go and remove that person from the property if they fail to vacate and
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
57:31
remove the person from the property. Okay. So if the property's in my name, then I could have them evicted? You would not
Speaker 150
57:39
need to hire an attorney if you own that property yourself. You're allowed to represent yourself.
This bill would allow corporations to represent themselves, which is long-standing, long-barred in this state. One follow-up just for
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
57:52
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. But would this bill allow me to do this? It would allow you.
Are you good? Representative Tosh, take care of my question. Representative Tosh got your question. Chair typically doesn't ask a question, but Mr. Squires, what's the typical cost
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
58:33
for someone to hire an attorney who has their own LLC and their own name and has to then hire somebody to do these kinds of things. That's going
Speaker 150
58:41
to vary widely depending on who you represent. 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 may do it hourly. They may do it flat fee. My experience is most attorneys are going to charge a flat fee. Again, I wouldn't want to
Speaker 153
59:00
guess as to what other attorneys may charge. I think a reasonable, uncontested eviction would
probably be somewhere between $500 and $1,000. Senator Caldwell, have you had any life experiences you want
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
59:12
to share with the committee in that regard? Normally, it's costing us about $2,000 to get someone evicted, and it's taking an additional 45 to 60 days, which is an additional two months rent that we lose in the process.
Members, any other questions? Mr. Squires, thank you for being here today. Thank you. Members, we have no one else who has signed up to speak for you. You're dismissed. Thank you, Mr. Squires. We have no one else who has signed up to speak
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
59:45
for or against the bill. Senator Caldwell, you're recognized to close 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 the evictions on our own with a court case recently, again, in Placid County that has changed that and caused us to go to circuit court. Then we've had to hire an attorney. But the real issue is if I owned it personally, I could 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 mentioned the process of the legal 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 their 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 to represent ourselves, and I would ask for a good vote. Members, Senator Caldwell is
closed 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. Aye. Any opposed, say no. No. The no's have it. Thank
you. The bill has failed. Thank you. Members, I see Senator
Tucker has come into the room. Senator Tucker, it looks like you have two bills on our agenda, Senate Bill 599.
I'll take them in whatever. Well, Senate Bill 599 is the first one up. So, members, if you'll turn to Senate Bill 599. Senator Tucker, you're recognized
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:01:52
to present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Clark, Tucker, State Senator, District 14. Representative
Hudson's the House sponsor of this bill, and I want to welcome her to participate in this conversation however she
sees fit. She may well, and, you know, we could get you for obstruction.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:02:11
So what this bill does is eliminate interlocutory decrees in 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 final order in terms of it being appealable. That creates an ambiguity in the law where a family can come to Arkansas, adopt an Arkansas child,
and without a final decree of adoption, with an interlocutory decree, take the child to another state. Now there's an 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, 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, an interlocutory decree is a very rare thing. So this just clears up that ambiguity by eliminating the interlocutory 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 properly with their new family. With the interlocutory decree, all of those things may not.
Is that my timer, Madam Chair? We could make it your timer. Oh,
go ahead and finish your thought. It was not a timer. Thank
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:04:05
you. Thank you, Madam Chair. There's always comments from Southeast Arkansas, you know. So with the interlocutory decree, not always are all the I's and T's, 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 not aware of any opposition to the bill. The bill was brought to me by Mr. J.P. Tribble. He helped me present it to Senator Judiciary. I know he signed up to speak
on the bill. He's welcome, with the chair's discretion, 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 no questions, we do have an individual who's
signed up to speak for
the bill, J.P. Trindle? Tribble. If you'll identify yourself,
Jp Tribble
Unverified
1:05:11
you're recognized to make your statement. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is J.P. 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 any time 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. With that, I will be willing to answer any questions. Representative Crawford,
you're recognized for a question.
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
1:05:55
Thank you, Madam Chair. Do you know, I mean, you used to, if we passed this, you would have had to wait six months.
Do you know if there was ever a time where the child was brought back to the courts and not placed with
Jp Tribble
Unverified
1:06:16
that family? So what happens is that the six-month rule still will be in place for final decrees for children who are over six months old. The whole purpose of that rule is if a child is placed at an older age and has undergone certain traumas to make sure there's a good fit.
The interlocutory decree, 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 six months and no greater than a year. And what happens is, in those instances, the adoptive parents, their rights do not fully vest 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 would be exercised if the child is placed out of state. Okay. 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 has passed, 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, Senator
Tucker has closed for bill. We have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Representative Brown, you're recognized for discussion. Thank you, Senator Tucker.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:08:06
I had an adoption just a few weeks ago and had to reread the adoption
Speaker 156
1:08:10
code for the first time in a long time. And, oh, my gosh, thanks for trying to fix it.
Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you, Representative Brown. Members, any other discussion? Seeing no further discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. The bill has passed. Senator Tucker, while we have you down at the end of the table, let's turn to Senate Bill 600.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:08:32
Thank you, Madam. Senate Bill 600. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Clark, Tucker, State Senator, District 14. This bill
was brought to me by former federal judge, retired federal judge Leon Holmes. He was helping a couple in Arkansas who bought a mobile home through an adhesion contract,
which is another fancy lawyer word, 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 take place in Texas under Texas law, and any dispute between the buyer and the lender would take place in Utah under Utah law. Well, I guess these folks defaulted on their payments, and the lender filed 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 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 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 it'll be subject to the jurisdiction of the Arkansas courts. For what it's worth, I had lenders reach out about this. We made an amendment to accommodate their concern. Their request was reasonable in my opinion. They were concerned about someone buying a mobile home in Eldoretta and taking it to Louisiana, for example, or buying 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 has signed up to speak for against the bill. You're recognized to close for your bill. The
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:10:34
only complaints that I got on the Senate floor about this bill is that my colleagues wish that it would have been broader. 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. What are the wishes of the committee?
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. Aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it.
Speaker 57
1:11:02
You have passed your bill. Thank you very
much, members. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, we're going back to our agenda and recognize Representative Shepard. You have a series of bills. We'll start with Senate Bill 511. I see no other senators in the room right now, so we'll start in with those who are running bills.
Representative Shepard, you're recognized. This is Senate
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:11:41
Bill 511. Thank you, Madam Chair. Matthew Shepard, District 97. The series of bills
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:11:47
that we have, four or five bills this morning, that were brought to us from the Arkansas Bankers Association.
Senate Bill 511, as you can see, simply creates the offense of automated teller machine impairment. Members, any questions? Seeing no questions, we have no one
signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized to close for your bill. I'm closed for my bill and
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:12:11
would move to do 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. Aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. The bill has passed.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:12:25
Members, let's turn to Senate Bill 512.
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:12:31
Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 512 just, it expands
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:12:36
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 for or against the bill. You're recognized closed for Senate Bill 512. I'm closed for the bill and moved to pass. Members, 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 of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. The bill is passed. Next, let's turn to Senate
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:13:20
Bill 513. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, you can see this bill creates the offense of male theft
and the offense of theft or unauthorized reproduction of a male receptacle. mail receptacle key or lock. And the information I've been provided on this is that in over a six month period, over $688 million in theft has been linked to mail theft related to check fraud, and that the average loss nationwide is $44,000 per incident.
Obviously, crimes related to mail are federal offenses, but this bill does give some local protections and allows for some ability to prosecute these crimes under state law. Members, any questions? Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question. Thank you,
Madam Chair. So I guess with this, we
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:14:25
already have some overlapping offenses here. We've got the federal law you mentioned. We've got just theft, which mail theft would be theft already. And then we've got theft of a postal package, you know, from the home. Not in every situation of mail theft, I realize.
Can you kind of tell me how you expect these to all interact? Are they at comparable levels? I mean, I realize that there'd be some choice in what's charged here, but how are all these overlapping charges going to work
in practice, do you think? Well, and I haven't
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:15:09
looked at the other crimes at the state level, but obviously this would be a very specific offense. I guess to some degree there's prosecutorial discretion,
but this is seeking to address what is becoming a more rampant issue. And I think that I don't see anybody from the Bankers Association here right now, but I think that also with regard to why have state law prohibit this and why not just rely on federal law is that oftentimes, 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 local prosecutors to have the opportunity to prosecute these crimes. And, you know, so I ultimately think it will be something that will be very good and will help to create greater efficiency when it comes to the prosecution of these offenses. A follow-up, please.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:16:11
You're recognized. And I understand that with regard 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, I mean, mail theft right now is already a crime. It's theft. Is the idea that with this, we're making it a more severe punishment, Or is there anything new being covered here that I'm missing? I'm not aware
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:16:41
of, well, 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 we do cover the waterfront when it comes to these crimes.
because they are becoming more sophisticated in these schemes in which mail is taken out of mailboxes and individuals search through those to find checks 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, that, you know, potentially maybe someone could argue doesn't exactly fit the crime.
And we're attempting to specifically create the criminal offense that addresses specifically what's occurring. And I'm not going to ask a question, but I
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:17:40
guess it may 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
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:17:50
that's right. I mean, that's always the challenge. I mean, I alluded to it earlier, is that, you know, the interaction between state and federal prosecutors, generally the more serious offenses can get, 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 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 popular
phrase around here, tool in the toolbox, to be able 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
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:18:48
the bill you recognize to close for your bill. I'm closed for my bill,
and I would move to 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 of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. The bill is passed.
Next bill is Senate Bill 514. Senate Bill 514. All right. Recognized.
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:19:17
Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 514 provides some additional language with regard
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:19:23
to unlawful 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. You know, I think that we all know that these types of crimes are becoming more and more prevalent.
The information that the Bankers Association has given me is that the FBI estimates that skimming costs financial institutions and consumers more than a billion dollars annually. And that some of these tools that they use, some of the skimmers that they're able to utilize can be purchased very easily online. that they can be monitored remotely via Bluetooth and that this is just strengthening this law.
And, you know, in a world in which the use of debit and credit cards 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 no 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
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:20:55
Chair, and I'm closed for the bill, and I would move to pass.
Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:21:04
of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. The bill is passed. Members, let's drop down. I think I may have one more. You do. You have one more. Senate Bill 597. So, members, let's go to
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:21:21
Senate Bill 597. You're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senate Bill 597 just creates the
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:21:26
offense of threat of harm upon a financial institution employee.
And, again, pretty self-explanatory. Members, any questions? Seeing no
questions, no one's signed up to speak
for or against the bill? You're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would move
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:21:47
to 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
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:21:55
favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. The bill is passed.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:22:01
Thank you, Madam Chair. This may be my last bill to run in House Judiciary, so thank you. Oh.
I appreciate your consideration. Members, Senator Irvin was in the room, but I think Senator Irvin 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.
Senate Bill 487, Senator Irvin. Senate Bill 490, Representative Clowney. Would you want to wait on Senator Irvin to come back? Is she
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:22:39
the only one left? Not quite. We've got some more. Okay, well, she was sitting there, so let's just wait
Speaker 8
1:22:47
another minute, if that's right. Okay. Then let's drop down. Where did I lost Representative Matt
Brown? Representative Beatty. I've lost him. I can do it. Well, hang on. Let me get through all of these.
Representative Torres has a House bill. Once again, we've called it, but we can't suspend the rule, 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 offense of video voyeurism?
Maybe. I had you written down as a
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:23:57
presenter. While you look at that, let's move on down 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 there's certainly not any time. Representative Beatty has come back into the room, so
we're going to move back up to Senate Bill 539. Senate Bill 539.
Representative Beatty, 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 Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:24:56
Representative Howard Beatty, District 95, if you'd bear
with me just one moment. This was a bill I was asked to run today for Representative Gass. If you'll hang on, we'll
bring the bill to you, if that'll help you.
Speaker 210
1:25:09
That would probably be a little help. We're here to help.
You know, we're all hearts and flowers in House Judiciary. No, not
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:25:20
your bill. Senator Irvin, you missed your chance. You've got to sit a minute. Hang
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:25:28
on. Emily's getting you covered. Well, I do have Senate Bill 590. I think that's under Gilmore. It's the same as the recentism. It is, but I've already called
Senate Bill 539, so we've got to take it up. Thank you.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:25:45
All right. Senate Bill 539 that I now have in front of me is to update and clarify certain portions of the law regarding the Division of Community Correction and Division of Correction to clarify references about the Community Correction Centers. Basically, what this bill does is it transfers the functions of the Community Correction Center and the Sex Offender Community Notification Assessments. After the passage of the PROTECT Act, 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 that department. There are currently seven facilities that are dedicated to some combination of 90-day sanctions, judicial transfers, administrative transfers, immediate sanctions or specialty court treatment. Those are Little Rock, West Memphis, Osceola, Texarkana,
Batesville, Helena, Malvern intake facility. The Secretary has already, with the approval of the Board of Corrections, transferred the duty to operate the security functions of those centers pursuant to Transformation and Efficiencies Act of 2019. This bill fixes the statutory references 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 a shared workforce where the facilities are located close to one another and where shared workforces are appropriate. This change creates the opportunity for operational efficiencies, streamlining the intake process so that offenders who become ineligible to stay at a community correction center, they do not have to go through a brand new intake process prior to their transfer to Arkansas Department of Corrections. The transfer of funding allows flexibility in the
maintenance personnel 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 and those assessments for prisoners and offenders in the community. And with that, I'll
entertain questions. Members, any questions? Seeing no questions, we have no one who has signed up
to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized to close for the bill. Madam Chair, members
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:28:21
of the committee, I am closed and offer a motion
to 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. 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.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:28:50
Emily's bringing you a copy. Members, Representative Howard Beatty, District 95.
This is Senate Bill 590. Basically, members, this is the same bill that 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. Basically, the same bill that I presented here and presented on the floor and
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:29:18
was passed. I believe that would be House Bill
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:29:20
1931. 1931, yes, ma'am. With that, I'll entertain any questions. Members, any questions? Seeing
no questions, we have no one who's signed up to speak for or against the bill.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:29:30
You're recognized to close for the bill. Madam Chair, members of the committee,
I'm closed for the law for a motion to do pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:29:41
any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:29:52
opposed, say no. The ayes have it. The bill is passed. 6-20. Which one? This would
be with Senator Irvin. Senator Irvin, you want to go ahead and join Representative Beatty. Members, let's go to Senate Bill 620.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:30:03
Senate Bill 620. It has an amendment, so let's get our amendment passed out. I have a copy of the amendment. Thank you. Members, take a look at the amendment.
Senator Irvin, if you'd like to explain the amendment to Senate Bill 620, you're recognized. Go ahead and identify yourself
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:30:51
for our record, please. Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee, Senator Missy Irvin, District 24. Members, this amendment was working in coordination with the Prosecuting Attorneys Association. Lori Kempuris is here in the room. Thank you, Lori, for helping us on this. Emily Virgin is also working with us on this bill.
What the amendment does is just clarifies Section 2 and Section 4 language, making sure that they're consistent, just to allow the judges the flexibility to understand the dynamics in play if the juvenile was a victim of human trafficking and how that can be taken into consideration. But we just needed to make sure that that language was more flexible for the prosecuting attorneys in Section 2 and Section 4. That's what the amendment does.
Speaker 11
1:31:44
Members, you've heard an explanation of the amendment. Representative Beatty?
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:31:48
Representative Howard Beatty, District 9, 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 ayes have it. You're now recognized to present your bill
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:32:06
as amended. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members. Basically, Senate Bill 620 is the bill
seeks to protect child victims of trafficking in numerous ways.
First, the bill creates a new offense 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 trafficked, 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, The adult court has the direction to deviate from a mandatory minimum sentence or to suspend a portion of that child sentence. The above sentencing relief will apply if the child defendant proves by clear and convincing evidence that they were 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 no questions, we have
no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized to close for the bill. Madam Chair,
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:33:45
members of the committee, I appreciate your time
today, and I offer a motion to do pass.
Do pass as amended? As amended, yes. 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. Aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. The motion carries. The bill has passed. Senator Irvin, I know I told you you'd stay down there for a bit, but I'm going to let, knowing that you have five more bills, I'm going to 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 Irvin. And, Senator Irvin, thank you for your letting us do that. Senator Clark, you're right.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:34:58
Thank you, Madam Chair, Committee. Alan Clark, State Senate District 7. Tiffany Wright, Director
Chair
Unverified
1:35:14
for the Division of Children and Family Services.
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:35:20
Senator Clark, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. The 325 and 326, we'll
start with 325, but they're both great child welfare bills.
We spent hours with all the stakeholders, and we made, in 325, made several amendments for DCFS. We've made several amendments for the judges and AOC, and everybody seems to be happy with them. I'm going to let, having said that, I'm going to let the director tell you what's in 325, if that's okay.
Speaker 227
1:36:01
You're recognized. Thank you. So I am here to provide technical assistance related to these bills. Senate Bill 325 is
Speaker 234
1:36:11
around reinstatement of parental rights. It's requesting to change the law from three years to two years. We have, DCFS has been utilizing this option for children and youth who have been in foster care for a significant amount of time. And so we have been looking back at family members as well
Speaker 235
1:36:34
as parents to determine their
appropriateness and if it's appropriate and working as a collaborative with the team and the child's treatment team to determine involvement again with that child who's been waiting in foster care with
Speaker 234
1:36:51
no goal, no permanency achieved. The other part of this bill is related to the Child Maltreatment Central Registry, which is not a publicly accessible registry. It contains confidential electronic records in the state's child welfare system, and this bill is asking
that amended that only true investigative determinations of abuse, sexual abuse, sexual exploitation will be maintained on the central registry and that as it's currently written, true investigative determinations of neglect would not be maintained unless the neglect occurred by an alleged offender of an employment
Speaker 235
1:37:31
such as a school, child welfare agency employee, facility employee, et cetera.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:37:39
Thank you for your remarks. Senator Clark, do you have
Chair
Unverified
1:37:43
any other remarks? No, I'd be happy to take any questions. Are there any questions to the committee? Representative Clowney,
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:37:49
you're recognized for a question. Yeah, I've got a lot of concerns here. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. So I'm looking at page five. 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. Can you walk me through what that home study would look like and what we
Speaker 240
1:38:38
are giving up if this passes? Yeah, so currently for these youth in foster care,
Speaker 227
1:38:43
when a parent, when we find a parent, we first are working with the team, the court team.
So CASA attorney at LIDEM, and we're saying, hey, we have found
Speaker 234
1:38:52
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 five years. And so 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 see 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 visits in the home, we could do a full home study or we could do a safety assessment of the home, which is a walkthrough of the home, looking for safety factors, making sure that it's appropriate and that the home would not pose any risk.
to the child being there, visiting, or that kind
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:39:43
of thing. Follow-up. You're 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, well, this, sorry, I guess to be clear, this says that you could award custody to the parent even if a home study
didn't happen. 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, why would we take out or why would we allow for the step to be taken out of
Speaker 243
1:40:17
that home study? I think because a home study is a in-depth look
Speaker 234
1:40:22
and assessment and analysis of that parent. A home study is 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. DCFS would still be in the home. We would still be evaluating and having a good understanding of what's going on. Many times these parents, we have all the history from the front end and now we're gathering on
Speaker 244
1:40:53
the back end what's happened. I don't necessarily think that we're losing. I just think
Speaker 245
1:41:02
this builds an option. All right, thank you. Are there any other questions
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:41:07
from the committee? If I might further answer, Representative, these children are children that
are still in the system years later. Whether it be two years later, whether it be three, whether it be four, they have not been adoptable. So they're stuck in the system, and where we have parents come back, it is a very rare instance, 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 how they work these cases. Are
Speaker 245
1:41:38
there any other questions from the committee?
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:41:45
Seeing no further questions, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Senator
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:41:53
Clark you're recognized to close for your bill. I appreciate the committee's time. I think the bill does some
very important things. This comes from folks within the system and like I said it has been worked out with with all the stakeholders and I appreciate a
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:42:09
good vote. I'm closed. Members we have a motion do pass. Is there any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion
all in favor please say aye. Aye. All opposed? The ayes have
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:42:23
it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you committee. SB 326 I'm going to just say the same thing as I said about 325 came from within
child welfare system. We have 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.
Chair
Unverified
1:42:46
just be sure to identify yourself for
Speaker 234
1:42:52
the record good morning again I'm Tiffany Wright the director for the division of children and family services so 326 puts recognition and importance on family and child protection and when a child can safely remain with the 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 taken into consideration, family integrity, the health and safety of a child,
timely permanency decisions, and that's it. I'm sorry. And then the other parts of
Chair
Unverified
1:43:30
this bill also amends related to removal, court-ordered removals
Speaker 234
1:43:40
from FINS cases, indicating that a family's and needs of services matter. A judge or a circuit court shall only initiate a 72-hour hold
if the judge believes that the circumstances of condition are continuing to place this child at risk and that DCFS would be allowed the opportunity to assess the safety and well-being of the child. Members, are there any questions? Seeing no questions, we
have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Senator Clark, you're recognized to close for your
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:44:19
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.
We don't have an amendment. I thought an amendment had been sent. Amendment has
not been filed on either one of your bills. Go ahead and close for your bill. Let's take a vote on your bill and I'll get with Representative Brooks and we'll go to our parliamentarian and ask him to--can we? I don't think we need to vote on it if we're going to come back and amend it.
We weren't going to amend it. What we were going to do is just go ahead and send it up and then ask them to call on Representative Brooks to present it on the floor. We used to do that, so I'm assuming we still can. Parliamentarian Vines, if you're watching our committee, 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 okay. But if not, we'll get it figured out before long. So, members, Senator Clark, if you'll go ahead and close for your
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:45:45
bill. The director has done a good job of telling me 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, any discussion of the motion? All in favor of the motion, please say aye.
Aye. Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. You have passed the bill. And we'll get that little parliamentary procedure
Senator Alan Clark
Unverified
1:46:09
worked out, so don't worry. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you,
members of the committee. Members, before we turn, Senator Irvin Luce on us. We're going to go to Senate Bill 537. Representative Brown, if you'll come to the end of the table and present Senate Bill 537.
Speaker 156
1:46:37
Thank you, Madam Chair. Matt Brown, District 55. Colleagues, 537 is a bill about recidivism, which is a word I can actually pronounce, unlike scary fricata from earlier this week. This is a bill I'm actually excited about. It's a bipartisan bill. It 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 full-time employment. 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 six 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 that old joke about there's lies in 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 attaboy 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 in their 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 have got a question. Here we
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
1:48:18
got a representing Tosh, you're recognized. Is that six continuous months? I can add. No,
Speaker 156
1:48:24
sir, I think the way the bill is set up is kind of just for an every 30 period day. You're, for 30 periods that you have full, for a 30 period day you have full-time work, you can get up to five days knocked off. So if you had a month, you're eligible for five-day credit and so on. But just doing the math, the easier way I think of it is for a year of work, you get two months off. That's really kind of how
I predict that. Thanks. 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 recognized to close for the
bill. I'm closed, Madam Chair. Make a motion to do pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:48:57
any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. The
bill is passed. Thank you, Madam Chair, thank you for the committee. All right, Senator Irvin, thank you for stepping down so we can run these, and we're going to pick back up and just start down the list of yours, members. The next bill I have up is
oh it's at the second one at the top senate bill 435 senate bill 435
and you're rec if you'll identify yourself you're recognized to present
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:49:39
your bill thank you madam chair members of the committee uh this this
is a bill that all of the health care providers uh worked on together collectively. The nursing association, I think, led the charge on this. What this does is it just
creates a criminal offense for aggravated assault upon a health care worker, but very specific to some of the things that, unfortunately, that our health care folks are experiencing in some instances. And so that's clearly defined in the first section about what a health care worker is. And then what an aggravated assault is explained upon in this next section in Section 3.
And again, the reason why we're doing this is because, unfortunately, we've seen an increase in assaults on our health care workers. It's really hard to see these nurses and these physicians that are working around the clock, particularly in our emergency rooms, being assaulted by patients. Not okay. And so that's what this
bill attempts to address. Members, any questions?
Seeing no questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Senator Irvin, you're recognized to close for your bill. I am closed. I'd appreciate a good vote. Members, Senator Irvin is closed for a bill. We have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:51:16
in favor of the motion, please say aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. The bill is
passed. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, if you'll turn to Senate Bill 487.
Senate Bill 487, Senator Irvin, you're recognized to present Senate Bill
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:51:37
487. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members of the committee, 487,
88, and 90 are all part of the juvenile judges package, working with the juvenile judges and the administrative office of the courts. These bills have been vetted by them and brought forward. Senate Bill 487, what this does is clarifies destroying or expungement of juvenile records,
and it mirrors what is in existing in the adult code. And so there's a date certain as to when these records shall be expunged, which really, really helps with our clerks and the folks that are keeping up with these records. Members, any questions?
Representative Collins, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:52:32
Chair. So I think I have two questions.
The one is, in this new language you add 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 two, which is dependency, neglect, or families in need of services? Or what happens with those? Because you had a list of three in the language being struck, and now you just have delinquency and language being added. Are they meant to cover the same types of things or not?
Yes, that's my understanding. Okay. Follow-up, please. You're recognized. And then the other question is about expunging, changing the meaning from destroy
to seal. Yes. Why doesn't destroy work? Because, okay,
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:53:23
so this is what is currently being done in the adult code. It just never got put into the juvenile code. But it's because everything is being moved from paper to electronic. And so they're able to seal those electronically.
But as far as destroying the computers, it 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. They're able to seal it, but that's my understanding.
And that's the explanation that has been given to me. One
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:54:00
more follow up. Okay. Thank you. And that makes sense. So is there any unsealing or is it sealed forever as if it were destroyed?
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:54:10
Correct. Sealed. Yeah. Sealed forever. That doesn't change. Okay. Thank
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:54:13
you. Any other questions from the committee? Seeing no other questions, we have nobody signed up to speak for or against. You're recognized to close for your bill. Oh, wait. We have one more question. No? Yep. All right. Let's let her close for our bill
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:54:26
and then we'll take your motion. I'm closed. Thank you.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:54:29
I'm closed. Thank you. We have a motion to do pass. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? Ayes have it. Congratulations. You passed your bill. Thank you.
Thank you so much. Senator Irvin, if you'll move
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:54:51
to Senate Bill 490. Okay. Senate Bill 490 is another one of the bills in the juvenile judge's package. What this does is just allows the circuit court to waive a required fee that was created statutorily.
It gives them latitude to waive that fee. Again, I think it's just making sure and recognizing that the situations of these kids that are juveniles and being able to waive that fee, I think giving that judge that discretion, I think is a good thing to do. So that's what the bill does. Members, any questions? Seeing no questions, we have
no one who's signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized to close for your bill. I'm closed. I'd appreciate
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:55:36
a good vote. Members, Senator Irvin, it's
closed for a 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. Aye. Any opposed, say no. If the ayes have
it, you have passed the bill. Members, let's drop down to Senate Bill 488. Senate
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:56:00
Bill 488. Thank you, Madam Chair. And then this is the last one of
the juvenile judge's package, and 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? Seeing no
questions, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Senator Irvin, you're recognized as closed for the bill. I'm closed. Appreciate a good vote.
Members, Senator Irvin is closed for a bill with 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. Aye. Any opposed 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
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
1:56:59
it. I think that's it. Say yay. Thank you for being here. Thank you so much. Representative Hudson, you're up for Senate Bill 555.
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:57:17
Thank you, committee. Ashley Hudson, District 75.
Colleagues, I'm presenting Senate Bill 555, which is the lead sponsor, Senator Jamie Scott. All this law does is it extends the statute of limitations in cases of video voyeurism and also makes an order of protection available to the victims of video voyeurism. We know that this is a crime that's sort of been on the rise and that young people, both boys and girls, have been victims of this. And so we are trying to extend the statute of limitations
for them to make those claims. Happy
to answer any questions. Representative Collins,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
1:57:55
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. My only question is that domestic abuse with this addition would, so there's A, B, and C, right? So A is physical harm, basically. B is sexual contact. And C would be video voyeurism. A and B are between family and household members. but C, 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
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:58:31
intimate partner video voyeurism, which could include somebody who's not 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. Okay. Members, any other
questions? Seeing no further questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:58:51
this bill. You're recognized to close for the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going to close for the bill and make
a motion to 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. Aye.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:59:04
Any opposed say no. The ayes have it. The bill
is passed. members hang on just a moment let me look through our agenda I think we have taken care of everything but let me look
All right, members, we have covered our agenda for today, 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 and Senate amendments, is what I'm anticipating on Tuesday. so we'll have one more meeting. We have nothing else left on our agenda.
And unless the Senate sends something down and we're instructed to hear it, it's my plan that we'll hear concurrence and Senate amendments. Are there any questions 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 Representative Hudson forgot. That's why I wasn't there. No, I was on my way, y'all.
That's right. She was on her way. We were too fast. Take your picture. 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. Thank you.
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
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
Speaker 101
Speaker 102
Representative Richard Womack
Unverified
Speaker 104
Speaker 107
Speaker 111
Speaker 114
Senator Greg Leding
Unverified
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
Speaker 140
Speaker 150
Speaker 152
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