Judiciary Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (39)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1875
Act 841
· 7 mentions in agenda, chapter, transcript
Matched: “…IDE OVERSIGHT FOR A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM. HB1875 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF AN IGNITION INT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE; AND TO PROVIDE … | Tosh | Notification that HB1875 is now Act 841 |
|
HB1895
Act 843
· 6 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “1895, that sounds like a A TV series. So. House Bill 1895.”
|
TO ALLOW A CORPORATION OR VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION TO EMPLOY IN-HOUSE ATTORNEYS TO REPRESENT AFFILIATES OF … | Dalby | Notification that HB1895 is now Act 843 |
|
HB1964
Act 825
· 6 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “HB1964 Brooks TO MOVE THE CHILD WELFARE OMBUDSMAN DIVISION AND THE…”
|
TO MOVE THE CHILD WELFARE OMBUDSMAN DIVISION AND THE JUVENILE OMBUDSMAN DIVISION TO THE DEPARTMENT … | Brooks | Notification that HB1964 is now Act 825 |
|
SR65
· 3 mentions in transcript, chapter, agenda
Matched: “So. What Senate resolution 65”
|
TO SUPPORT ARKANSAS'S ENGAGING THE JUSTICE COUNTS METRICS AND TO URGE POLICYMAKERS THROUGHOUT STATE AND … | C. Tucker | Sine Die adjournment |
|
HB1433
Act 828
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1433 K. Moore TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS EXECUT…”
|
TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS EXECUTING OR SERVING AN ORDER OF PROTECTION … | K. Moore | Notification that HB1433 is now Act 828 |
|
HB1529
Act 827
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1529 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL CREATIO…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL CREATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL; AND … | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1529 is now Act 827 |
|
HB1611
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AL IMPROVEMENT FUND OR ITS SUCCESSOR FUND OR FUND ACCOUNTS. HB1611 Gonzales TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RE…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ANIMAL … | Gonzales | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1662
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTI…”
|
TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY. | B. McKenzie | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1726
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ECLARE AN EMERGENCY. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1726 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT. SB3…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT. | Gramlich | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1764
Act 831
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TITIES TO IMPLEMENT AND UTILIZE THE JUSTICE COUNTS METRICS. HB1764 Underwood AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF…”
|
AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION. | Underwood | Notification that HB1764 is now Act 831 |
|
HB1829
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN BEFORE A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION. HB1829 Dalby TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; TO PROVIDE F…”
|
TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; TO PROVIDE FOR REMOTE TESTIMONY IN CERTAIN … | Dalby | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1877
Act 977
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1877 S. Meeks CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION…”
|
CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL THAT DEPICTS A CHILD; AND … | S. Meeks | Notification that HB1877 is now Act 977 |
|
HB1921
Act 824
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ENT AFFILIATES OF THE CORPORATION OR VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION. HB1921 Torres TO AMEND THE CHILD WELFARE AGENCY LICENSING ACT; TO…”
|
TO AMEND THE CHILD WELFARE AGENCY LICENSING ACT; TO AMEND THE TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION PROCESS … | Torres | Notification that HB1921 is now Act 824 |
|
HB1931
Act 694
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IMAGE THAT IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE IMAGE OF A CHILD. HB1931 Beaty Jr. TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN…”
|
TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN … | Beaty Jr. | Notification that HB1931 is now Act 694 |
|
HCR1010
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HCR1010 T. Shephard REQUESTING A STUDY OF WAYS TO IMPROVE THE STATE…”
|
REQUESTING A STUDY OF WAYS TO IMPROVE THE STATE'S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR YOUTH. | T. Shephard | Approved by the Governor |
|
SB143
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB143”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE TO COORDINATE WITH LOCAL SHERIFFS AND THE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB144
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TY CORRECTION IN CRIME REDUCTION AND PREVENTION ACTIVITIES. SB144 B. King CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER…”
|
CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER TO THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO PROVIDE FOR … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB145
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB145”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS RESULTING FROM LITIGATION INVOLVING THE USE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB452
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. SB452 B. King CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR REC…”
|
CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR RECYCLING OF WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB461
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Rice Sen. Matt McKee REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB461 J. Scott TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONF…”
|
TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS. | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB462
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB462 J. Scott TO CREATE A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYABILITY FOR A PER…”
|
TO CREATE A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYABILITY FOR A PERSON WITH A FELONY CONVICTION; AND TO … | J. Scott | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB472
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OR RECYCLING OF WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. SB472 J. Bryant TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION…”
|
TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION OF AN E-LIQUID PRODUCT OR VAPOR PRODUCT … | Underwood | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB477
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AND CIRCUIT COURTS TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF EMPLOYABILITY. SB477 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVI…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. | G. Stubblefield | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB5
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB5 B. King TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HA…”
|
TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB501
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB501 J. Scott TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A LANDLORD TO PROVIDE CERTAIN … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB509
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NDATORY PERIOD FOR THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE. SB509 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVI…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. | G. Stubblefield | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB548
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…E TO A TENANT WHEN A COURT HAS ISSUED A WRIT OF POSSESSION. SB548 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; AND TO REQUIRE THAT NOTICE OF A … | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB549
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…WARRANT BE SENT TO THE PERSON NAMED IN THE ARREST WARRANT. SB549 G. Leding TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A…”
|
TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE … | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB566
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB566”
|
PROVIDE FOR FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT, OR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE AND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB581
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; AND TO ADDRESS PRISON OVERCROWDING. SB581 B. King TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE P…”
|
TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB595
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…1 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. SB595 G. Leding TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HI…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN … | G. Leding | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB6
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE. SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. SB4…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB609
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB609 J. Scott TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB628
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY. SB628 Gilmore TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COURT TRANSCRIPT FEES;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COURT TRANSCRIPT FEES; AND TO INCREASE THE TRANSCRIPT FEES TO … | Gilmore | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB630
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB630”
|
TO REQUIRE ONLY A COURT TO FIX PUNISHMENT IF A DEFENDANT IS CHARGED WITH A … | B. Davis | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB631
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE TRANSCRIPT FEES TO WHICH A COURT REPORTER IS ENTITLED. SB631 B. Davis TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING HEARINGS ON THE R…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING HEARINGS ON THE REVOCATION OF PROBATION OR SUSPENSION. | B. Davis | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1848
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1848 Hudson TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS … | Hudson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB356
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB356 J. Bryant TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBT…”
|
TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE ARKANSAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER … | J. Bryant | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB441
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…NG; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ROOSTER FIGHTING. SB441 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. S…”
|
TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. | Hester | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Call this meeting to order. we could lower the volume a little bit.
We got any senators here that are on Senate bills. If we
got anybody here to run bills. Y'all have hesitated too long, uh.
1895, that sounds like a A TV series. So. House Bill 1895.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
3:39
is just about Senator Tucker, if you could identify yourself for
the record. My apologies, Clark Tucker, Senator District 14, House Bill 1895. Sponsored by Representative Dalby and myself. This is a bill that affects corporate entities' ability to have in-house counsel do work for them, um, which is currently legal under the Arkansas code.
And this just makes a tweak to that law where it extends the ability to do that to an affiliate. So if you have to corporate entities that are closely related through uh means of control, including a subsidiary, a parent or that sort of thing, then. Um, then you can have a lawyer, you know, do work for both at the same time under the under the code. That's it. Questions from committee.
Speaker 21
4:51
Center stolefield. Is, is anybody Concerned about this bill. Not that I'm aware
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
5:06
of, actually, I had a few lawyers reach out to me actually, because they thought it might hurt lawyer's ability to get clients if you have one lawyer working for multiple entities. Um, and I had another question about whether an insurance, a lawyer for an insurance carrier
could represent the insured, and there's a, I don't believe that's true because we have the law on the books that there's an inherent conflict of interest you can't represent the insurance carrier and the insured at the same time, and this doesn't change that. This only extends to, uh, you know, corporate entities that have control over the other, so the conversations I have with the lawyers who reached
out to me. Their concerns were satisfied, so I'm not aware of anyone else who had a question or concern about it. How long, how
Speaker 23
5:48
long have we had it, we're only one lawyer.
I don't know, Senator. OK. Thank you. Yes. Senator Tucker, again just One sentence, what does the bill do? And then why do
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
6:09
we need it? It allows companies that might have that are
closely held together and related eitherparent subsidiary or sibling to have one lawyer doing from work for multiple entities at the same time, and it just allows those entities to do that work without
having to go hire another lawyer. OK? Hearing no other questions, there's no one here to testify for or
against. Senator Tucker, would you? Uh, you are working to close career bill. I'm closed. I appreciate a good vote.
I'm moved to pass. Second from Censor Stubbleville. Uh Discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying a all opposed motion carried. Senator Tucker, you have passed your bill.
I, I'm Senator Tucker going to go
ahead in this little lull and run House Bill 1964, Senator Stubblefield of view. Take the chair And to testify for.
You got a copy the 1964. Thank you. Senator Clark, if you recognize yourself and Alan Clark,
a state Senate District 7, and Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask Tiffany Rott, uh, DCFS director to come to the table and help me with your approval. OK.
Jacqueline Mcewan
Unverified
8:12
That's right. We identify yourself for the record. Good morning. I'm
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
8:21
Tiffany Wright. I'm the director for the division of Children
and Family Services. Are you are recognized present House Bill 1964. Thank you, Mr.
Chair. The child welfare ombudsman. Comes from legislation that I ran to hopefully have someone, and I think there's 2 people now, uh,
to take my place. Uh, at
Uh, trying to get answers for families, within the child welfare system or to advocate for them when things are not going right and with the system as big as ours is, if everybody's doing things right 99% of the time, there's still families and children that fall in the gap. Uh, all this does is at that time, we went around the world to try to find
a place to put the ombudsman and it very between nobody wanted them to. They didn't fit, and we did find a place, but now we have a better place under the Inspector General, and we're just all we're doing is moving the ombudsman from where it is over at UAMS uh to the uh Inspector General's office and and everyone including UAMS, is
good with this. I'd be happy to take any questions. All right, Tucker, you write you
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
9:45
down for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I know what an ombudsman does generally, but I'm not sure I know what this ombudsman specifically does.
Speaker 50
9:58
Can you just educate me on that? Go ahead. Um, so this child welfare ombudsman takes concerns or complaints related to child maltreatment reports, placement issues, court issues, just depends on what it might be a family is experiencing, and then they gather information related
to that, ask DCFS questions and then um try to mitigate any concerns, primarily DCFS. We have a person who gets all these complaints. A central person and they work with the local teams across the state to figure out what is going on and then um we try to evaluate systems changes and improvements. I take it from that explanation, it's complaints about their
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
10:37
dealings with DCFS that they're trying to get resolved. It's not just DCFS, it's anywhere within the
child welfare system. They don't have the same independence that a state senator
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
10:51
has, but so it's, it's citizens trying to get issues resolved with anyone in the. OK, thank
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
11:01
you. Right, Senator, Senator Ra she recognized her
question. Since Gilmore, you're recognized for questions. All
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
11:12
right, thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Clark on page
Um, hang on, I'm looking for it again. Here we go, page 12. I'm just trying to make sure that this is ported language. We're not adding something new that didn't already exist, line 15 where it says juvenile ombudsman shall not have authority to Collin and then it lists 1 and 2 there. Um, what line number, so on 1215, starting line 15. It, it looks like new language, but I don't know if it's just
because we're reporting language from one spot to another. Did, did you see that? I do. That. I'm reading that Senator Gilmore.
Looks like New language that came from the division of Youth
Speaker 69
12:31
Services for some reason. Um, it's, it's on. Ms. Wright would like to
speak to it, yes, we're not moving
Speaker 50
12:40
just one budsman, um, this bill moves both budsman's, the juvenile justice ombudsman and the child welfare ombudsman together to increase consistency in oversight.
And I don't know about the juvenile justice ombudsman language, so I can't answer if that's
a new language or not. Uh And
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
13:05
Senator Gilmore, I don't know either. Well, um, and again, maybe it's
we're talking about ombudsman, you know, it looks like it has been removed on pages, uh, 2 through 6 and written as
you've suggested might have happened. OK, you said pages, what again? 2 through 6. 2 through 6. OK? I'm looking. on
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
13:42
line 33. Yeah, and I'm, I'm, but I'm looking for
the language. That specifically speaks to that on page 12. Yeah, me too. And I don't see it.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
14:06
Again, I don't necessarily think there's any, any, you know, well I'm not as trusting actually as you Center Gilmore, but Um
This bill is supposed to be about moving the to the Inspector General. That's what you're. Mhm. I, I would just want to know if it's, yeah,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
14:27
I'm trying to find it's supported language. Senator Gilmore, not so much because
you questioned it, because you raised a question in my mind. I'd like to pull this
bill down and get somebody in here that knows, preferably
Speaker 85
14:40
this morning. Thank you, Senator. All right,
Speaker 21
14:51
thank you. OK. Next up is Representative Tosh. Hm
18. Represent this is House Bill 1875 Representative Tos, if you would. Identify yourself for the record. Thank you
Speaker 93
15:28
Mr. Chairman, I'm Representative Dwight Taj, District 38. Representative Tas you are
recognized to present House Bill 1875. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
15:46
Committee members, this bill is a deals with the interlocked system, but before I'll tell you what the bill does, let me just briefly explain what it does not do. Currently here in the state of Arkansas, if you're convicted of a DWI. Then the court will give you the option, uh, well, they don't really give you an option. You're like driver's license are suspended for 6 months. House Bill 1875. Sorry, go ahead. OK, thank you.
Your driver's licenses are suspended for 6 months. Once those drivers' lives, I want your driver's license are suspended, you have the option whether to just accept that and go on for 6 months not drive an automobile. However, if you choose and you want to be able to drive, then you can have an interlocked system installed in your vehicle. And that's the current law. We're not changing any of that. What we are changing is, is that 6 months if
you choose to have the interlocked system in your vehicle. For the 1st 4 months of the 6 months, if you attempt to start that vehicle and you go over the limit that's calibrated into that machine by the health department. There is no violations that occur. What we're changing is, is in the last 60 days for that uh interlock system is on your uh on your vehicle during that 6 months for the last 60 days, if
you attempt to start that vehicle and you go over the limit, it's ce le br ated by the state of Arkansas, then that's going to count against you and then that interlock system will be extended for an additional 60 days. What we're looking for here, I did not put a criminal charge into this bill, and I've been asked that question, uh, I just didn't feel like what I was looking for here was to get these individuals back before a judge and back into the court and back into the system. What I
was trying and what we're trying to accomplish with this is a behavioral change. And so we give them the 1st 4 months, and we don't charge them or any violations against them, but after 4 months, if they're still attempting to start that vehicle and they're over the limit of what they need to be before that vehicle will start. That's a pretty good indicator that at the end of that 6 months, we're going to have someone back on the highway drinking and driving. So we're just trying to get your attention during that
last 60 days trying to trying to like I said, establish behavioral change, 35 states have already, uh, they've already adopted this legislation, uh, you know, we passed it out of the judiciary on the House end with all yes votes to pass the House floor with all yes votes and this bill is supported by the National Tra Traffic Safety Council, mad testified for this board for this bill during House Judiciary. Uh, it's supported by the district courts, by the
circuit courts, by All law enforcement officers, each agency here in the state, uh, it's just no, no, no known opposition to this bill, and I truly believe this is a good bill, a bill that we need to try to, like I said, change the behavior and keep people from driving under the influence of alcohol, and with that, Mr. Chair, I'll be happy to take any questions.
Representative Tosh, the, it sounds like you have struck about struck about as good a balance as I've seen a bill coming through here this session.
Questions from the committee. be We have some folks to testify for and against. We will start with the against
no wrong bill. Uh, we're going, we got one to speak for, uh, don't kill the bill OK.
Gina Indelicato
Unverified
19:58
Uh, Teresa Brewer Blue, I'm sorry. And You'll identify yourself for
Speaker 103
20:15
the record. Yes, I'm Teresa Ballou. I'm representing Mothers Against Drunk Driving as I'm a volunteer
and on the regional board working on policy. And I certainly don't want to do anything to to kill the bill or the fine job that that representative Tash, who I knew first as Captain Tosh with the Arkansas State Police. I would just say this to you all. Remember this, I go to the doctor, I'm old and now they'd give me three words to remember. So here's a word I'd like you to remember, and it is, well, it's 2, 12 million. And when I first came to work with Mothers Against Drunk Driving. My first day on the
job, I was told that in 2 days we had a press event with the Attorney General and there was a lot of work to be done and so I hit the ground running and um while I was up here in the Roachunda, my first press conference. We were working on lowering VAC from 0.10 to 0.08, and I ask a legislator what their position was, and he said to me, it's never enough for you people. And I remember saying to him, if it's never enough, it's because
it's always too many, especially when it's preventable. We have researched, there's all kinds of things we could say, but we know that compliance-based interlock already implemented in other states, reduces recidivism and remember that number 12 million. The industry reports 12 million times someone got behind the wheel of the car, tried to start it, and they were over. the limit. So those are 12 million trips that didn't happen. We know that 36 people every day die in impaired driving
prevention crashes. This is a tool that we need. The legislature, you all have been great to give a strong DWI roles through the years. This is something that we can do to add to our effectiveness, so I would appreciate your support for this. Appreciate Representative Tosh and all the hard work. This is a bipartisan issue. We can all get on board
for this. It looks like you all have done excellent work, uh, that is a great. catch
that if you are uh if the
device is having to keep you from stopping the car in that last two months, you still have a problem, uh, and and continuing it for another two months and another 2 months without criminal charges, just I think you couldn't have couldn't have cut the balance, made it any closer to what it ought to be, so we commend you. Any questions for the witness from the committee, Stopville. Yes, yes, ma'am, Ms. Brewer, I was gonna vote for this bill until
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
22:59
You said you knew uh Representative Taj. So
Speaker 106
23:05
Well, politics makes strange bedfellow. That's OK for the record, I have never been a bedfellow with Representative. That's just, I, I'm gonna, I'm going to stop talking now, OK? Now, now I'm really glad you
came to the table. Julie noted sometimes asked me about how representative talks saved my life one time.
Speaker 106
23:31
I'm not asking anything about Representative Todd
Speaker 117
23:33
Scheffer again, OK. Well, it's great, it's a great deal. He's turning off my Any
other questions from committee for this witness? Harry none, uh.
Then we appreciate you being here, Ms. Blue. Uh, Representative Tosh. Would you like to close? Would
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
23:58
Chairman, thank you, and I appreciate. Thank you for being
here and I'm appreciate a good vote and I'm
close with my bill pass from Central rice, 2nd from Senator Stubblefield. Any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye I post. That's of all the legislation we passed this session from Republicans who came saying we had too many laws. This is one
of the most worthy ones in my opinion, Representative Tosh. Your bill has passed. Thank you. That means a lot.
OK, so 2 senators entered the room. I only see. And I see one now and he's leaving, uh, do you have a
Senate bill? That was my That was your bill. I take all my compliments
back. Hi. Uh Back to the committee Senator Hester, do you have a Senate bill? No, not yet. OK.
Uh, you have a house bill. OK, uh,
So. What Senate resolution 65
Speaker 124
25:21
OK. Where we find a resolution. back of
part. such a talk or would you identify yourself for the record? Clark Tucker, Senator District 14. Uh, Senate Resolution 65 has an amendment. Senator Tucker, would
you like to explain the amendment? It just Clarifies
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
25:58
a couple of facts mentioned in the resolution and makes them more accurate,
OK. Motion to adopt the amendment to adopt motion from Senator Tucker.
2 from Senator Stubblefield. Any discussion, hearing none. All for the motion signified by saying I Clarifies a couple of facts mentioned in the resolution and makes them more accurate, OK. Motion to adopt the amendment to adopt motion from Senator Tucker. 2 from Senator Stubblefield. Any discussion, hearing none. All for the motion signified by saying
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
26:26
a all opposed motion carried. Senate Resolution 65 is amended Senator Tucker, you are recognized to present resolution 65. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, members. Special thanks to Senator Gilmore for co-sponsoring this just to make sure this point is clear, this is a resolution only. This is not a bill, but it's in support of a program called Justice Counts which, as you can see
when the bill starts, it's led by the US Department of Justice, and this is a program that helps state policymakers make more informed criminal justice policy decisions at the state level. Justice counts, they just need some affirmative act from a state government to be invited to participate. They don't need a law. This resolution will qualify as their invitation. It doesn't give them the authority to do anything that we don't want them to do. They'll just come in. They have resources to help
gather data so that we can make more informed decisions on criminal justice policy. They'll work with us. They'll work with state agencies and just offer to help if the agency doesn't want their help, then they won't, they won't get any, but if the agency does want their help, then the justice counsel folks will be happy to help as much as they can. To help us gather data to make it more accurate, more consistent, so we can make more informed decisions as state policymakers. That's, that's the point of the resolution.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
27:43
Questions from committee. Sent to us Senator Tucker was just needed. More because the policies of the previous Department of Justice that Many of us had great concerns with and you think the new one that we don't know about yet. My
Speaker 136
28:06
understanding is this policy is part of the Department of
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
28:14
Justice regardless of who the president is. I believe it's been there for for several administrations, including the previous Trump administration.
Do you think this would be helpful. I do think it will be helpful, yes, sir. Thank you. Other questions from
committee. Hearing none, uh, no testimony for or against. Senator Tucker, you are recognized to close for Senate Resolution 65. I appreciate
y'all's time and I would appreciate a good
vote. I move to pass. Motions from Senator Tucker as amended second from
Senator Gilmore. Any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying a, all pose, motion carried. Senate, you have passed Senate Resolution 65, Senator Tucker. House Bill 1931.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
29:19
Like Mr. Chair, Senator Gilmore, District one. Um, so this is the companion bill to um Senate Bill 590, uh, we've already heard this bill in this committee and on the floor and it's already down to the house, but this is just the house companion bill of that, so happy to take questions. If there are any. Questions from committee.
Hearing none, no one to testify for or against Senator Gilmore, you closed
for your bill. I'm closed. Make a motion to pass. Motion to pass from Senator Gilmore, a reluctant second from Senator McKee. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying ah I opposed motion carried. Congratulations,
Senator Gilmore, you have passed. House Bill 1931. I am going to ask Senator Stubblefield to come.
Take over the chair again and we're going to try to run House Bill 1964. Again
Sent to Clark you going and by yourself and
your guests. State senator, State Senator
Speaker 50
31:08
Alan Clark, District 7. Tiffany Wright, director for
the division of Children and Family Services. Aren't you recognized? House
Bill 1964, we presented earlier, we're moving the Wilfer ombudsman. And evidently the juvenile ombudsman to the office of the
Inspector General where they belong we've got answers for Senator Gilmore and myself. And everything's fine. Uh, we're happy to take any questions. Committee of course, yes, and just, yeah, because
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
31:41
I, I raised the question. I just want to clear it up. It, it is ported language. I'm good. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. Any other
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
31:47
questions from the committee? And one of the audience wish to speak for or against the bill. Right.
are saying no. You want to close for your bill, such a Clark. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am closed. I appreciate a good vote and I make a motion to pass. We have a motion to pass by Senator Rice, seconded by Senator Gilmore, in discussion. All those in favor say
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
32:16
aye, all opposed. The bill passed the Central Clark. Thank you. Well, it's been twice, but.
We got any other bills, here we go. Resent mix is here.
What bill Representative Meeks House Bill 1529 Committee.
OK. House Bill 1529 representative, would you and your guests
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
33:17
Uh, identify yourselves for the record, yes,
Speaker 154
33:22
Representative Steven Meeks, District 42. Good morning, Justin Brasher, senior Assistant
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
33:27
Attorney General with the Arkansas AG's office. Thank you committee, Mr. Chairman. So the idea for this bill for me came from uh an AI conference that I attended this summer. They told us the story of I guess it happened in Connecticut where boyfriend, girlfriend, we're in a relationship. Oh, I'm sorry.
Make sure I'm not blowing you out here. Uh, boyfriend, girlfriend, we're in a relationship. The relationship broke up. The boyfriend took her picture, put it on an illicit photo, spread it all over the school, and basically destroyed her life. There were no laws in place that deal with that situation in Connecticut, as you know, these are emerging technologies, and so what this bill would do is it would put protections against that kind of thing in place from here in Arkansas as I got this bill
worked up. I sent it over to the AG's office, come to find out this is a priority bill for them. This is something that they wanted to have in place in the state too, so I work with them on this bill. And basically what the bill does is it would make it illegal in Arkansas for you to take the picture of a known identifiable person and put it in an illicit photo and either create it or and or distribute it. If you do that, the penalty is the first time it's going to be a class A
misdemeanor. So if you're just a stupid kid, you do, you do this, we're going to slap you on the wrist real hard and let you know that was stupid. We're not going to tolerate that here in Arkans. After that first go around, if you do it again, it's going to become a Class D felony. So in a nutshell, that's what the bill does if Mr. Brashear has any words that you'd like to add to it, then
Speaker 154
35:11
I will turn it over. Thank you, Representative Meeks.
Chair
Unverified
35:15
I'm not blowing everybody out here, am I? We're good, OK, yes, this is the Attorney General's
office. We support this bill when we saw that Representative Meeks had filed it, we'd already been working on a couple of things in this area and so reached out and worked on the language. so that it's constitutional because this is an area where there's a, there's a lot of constitutional law, a lot of case law regarding this sort of activity, particularly when it comes to adults and how it coincides with free speech. So what we've done is very intentionally taking a lot of language from the federal code that has been upheld and has not been found to be unconstitutional, worked with
it. There's some case law, a case called Ashcroft. We've made sure that it fits with that case as well. And so the both the identifiable as well as the language that is online 10 to 14 of page 2 is a specific where it says such as an ordinary person viewing the deep fake visual material will conclude that the depiction is of the identifiable person and sexual contact or other things
is specific so that we are not, it's not overbroad and getting things that would then be considered speech. The other thing to be considered here is that Uh Oftentimes, you know, Adult pornography is definitely viewed differently in the law than child sexual abuse material. However, when consent is taken out of the picture, which is what's happened here when someone who has not consented to have their picture put in these sort of either images or videos then we're in a different area than consensual
adult pornography. So the last part is we deal with this. Our people are investigators deal with this issue. They deal with what they call them sextortion cases, and those are situations where Might be a boyfriend, girlfriend, it might be some other situation. It might even be someone who they've never met online. They get a picture of them. They put that in something like this in a deepfake sort of situation or run it through some sort of AI and then come back and say, give me money or I'm spreading this around, so this would criminalize both that possession and that distribution
and the possession element is also because there's a lack of consent, we're comfortable with the constitutionality of the possession element as well. Happy to take
any questions. Senator McKee, you recognize for a question. Thank you, Mr. Chair,
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
37:37
and thank you, Representative Meeks for bringing this bill. I think it's a very good idea and very, very much needed. There's no concern with the Attorney General's office that this could encumber. Anything like parody or anything like that where folks are
Chair
Unverified
37:57
is intent part of the process. So a couple things. First is, again, it, it needs to be in a state of nudity or engaging in sexual contact, so that's the first part of this, uh, but second is, uh, if you look at the, it does need to be distributed, um, and so because of those two things, we're not concerned about it affecting any sort of parity or anything like that. Thank you. Other questions from committee.
The What is the penalty for a Class A misdemeanor and for a class D felony. Oh boy,
Speaker 162
38:40
I'm have to pull this off the top of my head. I do the one the prosecutors one of y'all answer that real quickly? I
OK, thank you. The answer was one year and $4500 fine for a Class A misdemeanor and up to 6 years and a $10,000 fine for a Class D felon.
Other questions from committee. Harry Nunn, Jeff Rosensweig is signed up to speak against. Mr. Rosweig, if
you will identify yourself for the record. Jeffrey Arkansas Jeff
Speaker 171
39:35
Rosensweig, Arkansas associates criminal defense lawyers. You're not, we're not arguing about the distribution aspect the Attorney General was probably correct with regard to distribution. However, this is phrased in the disjunctive creation or distribution and the, in other words, the mere creation without any distribution without any other attempt to give it to anyone, display it to anyone, would be a
crime that is going to be way overbroad in violation of the First Amendment in violation of the Ashcroft decision to which Mr. Brasher referred. Ashcroft's decision talked about creation of things that over brought overbread because some things may be artistic now obvious and Senator McKee noted. There's no exception for parity. In other words, if I were or
someone were to sit at one's computer and create a an image of, let's say Donald Trump having, you know, some sort of uh, uh, you know, sexual activity and just put it on his office wall to laugh at or whatever, somebody comes in, sees that. That's a crime under this law that is way overbroad in violation of the First Amendment
and and extortion, of course, which is obviously a form of communication is that's a crime we we already know that that's already against the law, but I would suggest very strongly that if this bill is going to be held to be constitutional, you take out the words creation and penalize only. distribution Questions from committee. And Mr. Chairman, I don't know
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
41:41
to respond to that, but we do have a
response once the committee finishes with their questions. Yeah, proper time will be closing and unless somebody asks you a question while
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
41:54
they're asking him a question. question from committee. So your stubble field. Uh, Mr. Roland Swag, are you, are you, uh, referring to the
Speaker 174
42:05
line on number 18, 2nd page. So it says unlawful creation or distribution. OK, unlawful creation. It's unlawful, of
Speaker 171
42:13
course, the title is unlawful creation or distribution, OK? And then if you look at line, uh, uh, line 8, for instance, knowingly creates or distributes, in other words, it's a crime merely to knowingly create. I can create some something that is a parody that no one else would see that I don't intend for anyone else to see
and put it on my office wall and if someone comes in, let's say a policeman comes in or a sheriff comes in to serve a subpoena on me to come to court for something. He sees that he can arrest me for committing a crime under this under this under this uh proposition here that the I am confident that a court would hold that the mere creation without any
distribution or threat to distribute uh and just for simple possession of it, particularly in a political parody uh context is going to be held woefully overbroad and we'll bring the whole statute down. Could, could, could AI be used in
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
43:38
this situation? Uh, yeah, I, uh, you know,
Speaker 171
43:43
AI could be used in it. The issue is not
the issue is not how it's created. The fact is the simple fact of creation without any distribution or threat of distribution of it and is would be is a crime under this and that and that is going to clearly violate the First Amendment. Other questions from committee? I lost.
Hearing Nunn, thank you, Mr. Rosensweig. The representative makes you recognized and close
Speaker 95
44:28
for your bill. Thank you, colleagues. So obviously
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
44:31
I don't pretend to be an attorney. I'm not an attorney. Technology is my area of expertise, which is why I brought this, but just a couple of responses there. So first off, I know that Clarence Thomas, when he was on, or he still is on the Supreme Court, but many decades ago when they first started establishing the
case law that they're kind of using as a guide for this. He said at that time that as this technology develops that they're going to have to come back and look at these issues and to further flesh them out. And so I think that with the passage of these bills that that is going to take place. Secondly, just from a practical standpoint, if someone were to do this and you know, take my image and create one of these. In one of these compromising, I say that that is an invasion of my privacy.
Would any of you be OK if a pervert took a picture of your wife or daughter, and created that and put that on their computer and say that's OK, protected speech. I don't. So I understand the concern, but I think we need to send a clear, loud message that it's not OK, by any means, whether I'm just sitting in my basement and my, you know, underwear creating these pictures of, you know, I'll just leave it at that. I think we need to put these, we need to, we need to get this
Chair
Unverified
45:54
done with that I'll turn it over to. The only thing I'll add is just that in speaking to the parody element, lines 10 through 14 on page 2. Make it clear that it needs to be sexually explicit conduct that such an ordinary person viewing that visual material would conclude the depiction is of the person engaging in sexual contact or sexual intercourse, and that's taken straight from the federal code. And the idea is again that this is not a parody you look and you think it's the real thing. That's why the definition is written that way, and that's what was worked at the federal level as well.
Will the committee? Motion to pass from Central Stofield. 2 from Senator Ds, any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion
signified by saying aye, all opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations, Representative Meeks. You have passed your bill. I am
going to interrupt you before you present the next one, and I'll let center des uh present a bill
so he can get back out of here. All right,
we'll slide out of the way. OK, OK.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
46:57
Uh, got her down. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members. State Senator Tyler Dees District 35. We are looking at House Bill 1921. House Bill 1921. And I'll start to describe while y'all are pulling that up, but this is been a noncontroversial bill. And in fact I know we're different bodies, but 97 to 0 in the House, but what this bill does is it makes it more
efficient on the foster care situation around training, so especially around relatives when they're wanting to be foster parents, so it helps reduce the number of total hours in no way changes the training or or the curriculum or substance dealing with DCFS, but it It, it makes it more efficient for for the family so that it really encourages foster care and makes it easier for families. And if you look at
states nearby where are some of the highest hours required on some of the training, and so this really encourages and helps foster care to be easier and more approachable, so that happy to take any questions.
Questions from committee. Central of Good job. The, uh,
Hearing no questions, there's no one to testify for or against, Senator Des, are you closed for your bill? I'm closed. I make a motion to pass. Motion to pass, second from
Center Stubblefield. Any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye, all opposed motion carried. Congratulations Senrade. You have passed House Bill 1921. Representative Meeks, you are recognized and represented more we we realize you are here. We have an amendment for this,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
49:00
Mr. Chairman. OK. And what bill number is it?
It is House Bill 1877. House Bill 1877.
And we'll pass out the amendment. Representative Meeks, are you? Ready to
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
49:16
present the amendment. Yes, Mr. Chairman. So this is an idea that came to us from industry, so this bill is going to be related to uh the AI creation of child pornography
basically in a nutshell, what this amendment does is it allows companies that are developing AI image tools. It allows them to do red hat testing. To try to prevent their AI tool from creating these um and so that's what the what the amendment does. So I hope that makes sense. I can go into it in further detail if needed, but in a nutshell that's what it does. Is
there a motion to adopt motion to adopt from Senator Gilmore. I from Senator McKee, any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying I, I oppose most carried amendment is adopted. Representative makes you are recognized to present House Bill 1877 as amended.
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
50:21
All right, thank you, committee. Again, this is a bill that I've been working with the Attorney
General's office. This is currently in place in 37 other states. Arkansas would be number
38 upon approval. What this bill does in a nuts. So, like I said, is it makes it illegal for AI generated child pornography and has the same language in there about it has to be indistinguishable from a real child, if you're familiar with how these models work, they are actually when they create these images of fake children. They're actually using the photos of
real children in their creation, and so in a nutshell, that's what this again this does it just outlaws the creation of AI. generated child pornography. Questions from committee. Questions from
Speaker 165
51:14
committee. Hearing no questions from committee. There's no one
signed up to speak for or against. Will the would you like to close for your bill? Yes, colleagues, I'm
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
51:35
close, and I would just ask that you would support us in our efforts to put these protections in place for our children. What that would appreciate
a good vote. Will of the committee motion do pass from Central McKee, 2nd as amended, second from Senator Gilmore,
all any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signal by saying a, all opposed, motion carried. Congratulations, Representative Mixeks. You have passed your bill as amended. represent a more. Oh.
What Bill representative? House Bill 1433, would you identify yourself
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
52:18
for the record. Kendra Moore, State Representative, District
23. Represented more, you are recognized to present House Bill 1433.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
52:29
Thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 1433 simply adds that a law enforcement officer who is serving an order of protection for domestic violence chicks for
those active warrants before serving that order of protection. The purpose, excuse me, the purpose of this edition is to promote officer community and court safety. We vetted this bill through the administrative office of the courts. The judicial counsel, the Arkansas police chiefs association and the Arkansas Sheriff's Association. And with that, I'll try to answer any questions. Questions from committee.
There are no questions from the committee. Uh We have Brian Vandiver to speak
Speaker 201
53:31
against. OK Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Brian Vandiver on behalf of Arkansas advocates for parental equality. I want to commend Representative
Moore on her bill and, and this amended version is much better than the original version. We spoke against in the House, and I appreciate her listening to our concerns in the House and and amending it, but we still have concerns, and I'd like to try to explain those.
Speaker 203
54:00
What this bill does is it conflates criminal law and civil law. In order of protection is basically an injunction in civil family court.
And what this would do is it would require a check, uh, from law enforcement before serving that civil order of protection to see if there is a criminal arrest warrant. Um, I guess our concern is why are we singling out this type of civil order and only checking for criminal warrants in those civil cases and not other civil cases where injunctions are awarded. I think that creates a
problem with these types of cases and order of protection cases because what it does, we know that these orders of protection are already weaponized in the sense, uh, by petitioners. lawyers, it further incentivizes that. Weaponization of an order of protection, to use it as an offensive sword. Um, finally, What we would say is this bill
does nothing to require a check for criminal arrest warrants on the petitioner. It only requires a, a check for criminal arrest warrants on the respondent. So hypothetically, the petitioner Seeking the order of protection could have an arrest warrant for armed robbery, the respondent could have an arrest warrant for failure to appear in traffic court. And this requires only a check for the arrest warrant of the
respondent. And I think that's a gross That's a gross unfairness in how the or protection law should be applied, and our organization is opposed to this bill for those reasons. Questions from
committee. Mr. Vandiver when a Border protection is originally served. Is there a hearing after that? Uh,
Speaker 201
56:17
yes, Your Honor, there is generally a hearing after the order of protection is served. Uh, but by then if someone has also been served an arrest warrant, then whoever is arrested
is going to be in jail. Now that's, that's my point though is that this is
at this point is still contested or while they, the way I understand it, and I'm not a lawyer, as a judge has heard enough evidence that he believes
there may be, may need to be, there may be a need, but then the Respondent appears in court and And can I say
Speaker 201
57:00
oftentimes that uh Order is not continued, I think often many times the order is rescinded, not continued, whether
Speaker 203
57:07
that's a lack of evidence or false allegations. We know that's a problem in our system. False allegations being filed for orders of protections
and so when you have those scenarios and you're requiring law enforcement to then um out of their ordinary systems, they're ordinary course of doing business, of serving criminal. arrest once you're mandating they check that and then serve that criminal arrest warrant in conjunction with a civil order of protection, I think that creates problems not only for the respondent of the order of protection, but also from a criminal due process standpoint,
I think that's creating problems for those criminal
defendants. Questions Citra Gilmore. And I'll show you the same respect
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
58:00
that Mr. Vandiver did, sir, in calling you Your Honor. So thank you. I it happens a lot in here, no problem. He's very judicial. Well, I
Speaker 203
58:08
have a habit of 25 years of law practice, so I extend that courtesy
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
58:15
to anyone, again, no, no point made other than we like
to mess with the chair, um, so speaking back to, you said when the petitioner, there's no warrant check on the petitioner. Um, I guess I'm maybe you can elaborate on the on the relevance of that because again if this is an order of protection, um, typically there's a reason for that to the chair's point, a judge would have to agree with that. uh, there being a need for this sort of protection. So again, I mean, what would, what would we say if there's an active warrant
against the petitioner, then What we, we don't need the order of protection. We don't,
there should be two order protections served, I guess I'm just trying to figure out the relevance of, of, of you stating that and maybe you can help
Speaker 203
59:07
me. Sure, I'll try to explain. I'm not, I'm not saying that there may not need to be a basis for the order of protection. What I'm saying is that there's a level of unfairness when we're requiring the law enforcement system to only require a check for a criminal arrest warrant on one of the two parties involved
in that civil litigation. If you have someone initiating the civil case, the petitioner asking for an order of protection and now we're requiring that law enforcement only do a check for criminal arrest warrants on the respondent. Again, like in my hypothetical, you very well could have a situation where both parties have criminal arrest warrants and the potential, the petitioners criminal arrest warrant may be much more severe, but we're not asking law
enforcement to do a check on the petitioner. It's just the respondent and and we know from the statistics that orders are protection are disproportionately filed against men in this state and in the nation and So this will have a disparate impact. No doubt on men. OK. Thank you. Other questions from committee. Harry, Mr. Vander Berg, thank
you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No one signed up to speak for or against Representative Moore,
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:00:35
you're recognized close for your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is simply just a protection. Again, this is in order to protect the officer, the community, and the court with this law. We are not mandating that arrest happen. This is only an active warrant check and leaving it to the officers' discretion and again just
promoting safety in the courtroom, and with that I appreciate a good vote. Will
of the committee motion to pass from Senator Gilmore, 2nd from Senator Tucker. Any discussion?
Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye. Post Motion carried. Congratulations, representative. You have passed House Bill 1433. Thank you, committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. OK, send her to present a Senate
bill. You go to the top of the list. What bills, Senator Hestro Senate Bill 441. Senate Bill 441. Would you identify yourself for
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:01:41
the record. State Senator Bart Hester, District 33 members we've had a lot of debate on this. It's the junk lawsuit Prevention Act, visited with some members since the committee and I'm still
happy to answer any questions. I think we're we're quite
familiar with it. OK, questions from committee. Senator Tucker has a question when he gets back to his
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:02:13
seat. Is this the same bill or has that been the exact same
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:02:16
bill. All right, thank you. It, it did have an amendment last time, and if it passes today, it will be as amended.
OK. Uh, other questions from the committee? carry none, don't. There's no one to testify for or against Senator
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:02:37
Hester. You recognized close for your bills, I'm closed, I appreciate a good vote. Motion to
pass from Senator Gilmore, 2 from Senator Johnson, discussion, Senator Tucker. I'll be brief.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:02:50
I don't want to rehash everything, just the two quick points. I understand what Senator Hatcher's
trying to do. I don't think we should
interfere with ongoing litigation, which this bill definitively would do, and this bill also prevents people from people who have been injured from seeking recovery for that injury, so I think I'll be opposing him for those two reasons. Thank you.
OK, and let me, uh, say that that was due pass as amended. Any other discussion? Hearing none, all
for the motion signified by saying aye all posed.
Congratulations, Senator Hester, your bill has passed. Roll call.
Speaker 224
1:03:48
Called forth from Center Stubblefield. What Yes. Senator Dolefield. Senator Stopplefield, no. Senator Rice. Senator Rice, no. Senator Johnson. Senator Johnson, yes. Senator
Speaker 161
1:04:02
Tucker. Senator Tucker, no. Senator Gilmore, Senator Gilmore, yes, Senator Mickey. Senator McKee, yes, Senator Ds, Senator D, yes. right
now A boats. OK, uh, bill passes by a vote of 5 to 3.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:04:41
We got anyone here to representative bill number? House
Bill 1764, Mr. Chair. Committee House Bill 1764.
Representative, would you identify yourself for the record? Yes
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:05:05
sir. Kendon Underwood, state representative, District 16. Representative Underwood, you
are recognized to present House Bill 1764.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:05:15
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate the committee's
time. I recognized when I was here earlier this week, I took a simple bill and overcomplicated it and did not do a very good job presenting it, so I thought I'd come back and try to do to do a little better. This bill is not changing anything in our current law as it relates to violations of orders of protection, we already have certain standards when you have repeat offenders. The only thing this bill is doing is
clarifying that if you're a repeat offender in another state and you come here, you're going to be treated exactly the same as if you were had repeat convictions in in our state. So it's just a clarification because we don't want to give a pass to individuals that are coming from out of other. States over individuals who are in Arkansas. Questions from committee. Sent Stubblefield. Uh,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:06:11
representative Underwood, you're basically saying that you can
just accumulate these regardless of your location where if you committed them in another state and they accumulate to Arkansas. So
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:06:24
please correct me if I'm not answering your question. The way the statute reads currently, it says
under this section, so it's only referring to convictions that occur within the state of Arkansas. So if you happen to get multiple convictions in another state, and then you come to Arkansas, you could arguably say that they didn't occur in under the section under the code
in Arkansas and so therefore they're not Us, they can't be used for enhancement, just the same as we would in Arkansas conviction. Does that make sense? Yeah, yeah, it makes sense. Thank you for the question. Other questions from committee.
Hearing none, there's no one to testify for or against Representative Underwood, you recognize the close for your bill. I really appreciate the
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:07:17
committee's time and hearing this again, and I'm close for
my bill. Motion to pass from Senator Gilmore, 2 from Senator Johnson, any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye, all posed. Motion carried. Congratulations, Representative Underwood. You have passed your bill. Thank you. Appreciate you. Whoever we got up next? Senator Scott,
it's so good to see you and Senate
Speaker 87
1:07:56
Judiciary. Yeah. Have you, have you got a bill
to run? the resolution. She's representative is running a resolution, and you're on the resolution or you're just here for moral support. It can't be both because the second one was just. Representative view or recognize what what are we hearing?
Speaker 241
1:08:21
Yes, resolution 1 and 10 House concurrent resolution
1010. If you would both identify yourself for the record. I'll say that again. House Concurrent Resolution 1010 should be at the very back
of your package. The end of house bills.
Again, with y'all recognize yourself? Identify yourselves for the record.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:08:52
Good morning Committee and Mr. Chair. Senator
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:08:57
Scott, District 12. Good morning. State Representative Terra Shepherd,
District 79. OK. Uh Representative Senator, you are recognized, but first, a word of
caution, representative, uh, you realize by putting Censor Scott on your resolution that she's, so far she
has a perfect record in here, but she's never come in here herself, so.
Speaker 244
1:09:25
The, uh, you know, I'm not sure how the committee may react to that. Well, I'm hoping that this streak will continue to go. Well, you, you are recognized present House concurrent resolution 1010. Thank
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:09:39
you so much, Mr. Chair and gentlemen, I won't take up too much of your time this morning during the '86 general assembly, Senate resolution 31 was filed and Senate resolution 31 was filed to
Study Arkansas's juvenile justice system and out of that grew a political will to reform. We made a lot of great progress in the state. A lot of the practices and systems that are in place today are a result of that, um, but however, they're starting to be a rise in juvenile commitment for nonviolent offenses and so I I filed this so that we can warn
remain committed to juveniles in Arkansas and then to study if there's something that's driving that, and if it's something that we can do as the legislature to help. Senator Gilmore, you're recognized for a question. Thank you. I,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:10:43
I don't want to cut in too soon if Senator Scott had anything she wanted to add as part of the presentation. You don't have to. I just didn't want to take that from you. I
know that she presented last week in front of aging children
on another bill and a group of juvenile judges were there and they really liked this Judge Brasswell from Conway and others thought that this would be some stuff that they can work with her on, and so I know that they were very supportive and I thought people like that who are hands on the ground, boots on the ground, I'm trying to make progress on juvenile efforts
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
1:11:15
in Arkansas was was good for, you know, her bill and so I just wanted to add that. Thank you. Question.
Speaker 139
1:11:21
Question. All right, thank you, um. So I, I just, I
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:11:30
I want your thoughts as to how you envision this going because, and again, I think I support what you're doing here. I
think it's a good idea, um. But I, I chair the Senate interim Committee on Children and Youth, so I guess I'm trying to figure out what's expected as a result of this.
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:11:50
What do you envision happening here. So what in great question, Senator, and thank you. What I envision happening is what happened prior. It's the organizations
coming together and identifying is there something that is driving juvenile incarceration rate, specifically as you relate to nonviolent minor offenses, and if there is something that's driving that, what can we do to minimize that. I'm sure you're aware and I'm glad to know you chair that committee. Children in Arkansas face higher rates of trauma than any other child in the nation. I'm sure you're
aware of that. So what DYS is seeing and what they have. Reported here is that right now. Caucasian girls are increasingly being the ones that are being committed to DYS. So at the end of the day, what I envision happening with this is we look at other alternatives. Let me give you another example. When Senate Resolution 31 was filed, they were able to get the money to get the commitment down when
they got the commitment down, Senator Gilmore, the monies that they saved by not incarcerating you. They put those monies into the community. We don't have, which you probably are aware of. We do not have substance abuse bands for juvenile in the state. We only have one sex offender bed for juveniles in the state, so the resources for judges are very limited at the moment. So hopefully as an outcome we can look
at how can the state put
more dollars in community-based programs instead of incarceration.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:13:38
Follow up, Mr. Chair. Um, thank you. And so, um, Just to point out, I think Judge Brown in Pine Bluff has a very successful juvenile program that he's doing, um, great outcomes. I mean, I think a model for what should be probably across across the country. I don't know if you know Judge Ernest Brown, but doing good work there. So I'll point to that. I, I guess what I'm trying to ascertain with
this is the expectation to the committee. Is this
something that we will just, uh, bring people in to testify and hear I'm just, I'm trying trying to get an idea of how much work is expected, what, what is expected
the legislative intent, if you will, from, from both of you as the sponsors so that we have an idea from, from what the, the
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:14:25
expectation for the committee is. Yes, sir, we will bring individuals in to testify in regards to what are some of the driving forces behind it and I would be willing to commit to you, Senator. I
want to be actively involved in this, um, I am a correctional auditor, so I'm very familiar. With, you know, conditions of confinement and the impact that it has, so I'll be very actively committed with this process the entire time. OK. Thank you. Senator Ross, you recognize? Thank you all
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:15:00
for being here today. Uh, You mentioned a couple of times this goal of this would be why.
Is there a rise in the number of young people, is that correct? Yes. I don't need a study to tell me that. Studies can help. But it is a lack of parenting. It is a lack of understanding actions have consequences. It is a false reality that we're teaching kids about life. In dollars only it's not going to fix the problem.
Speaker 258
1:15:43
Would you agree with any of that? Well, in
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:15:49
reference to this resolution, Senator, Kids that are committing nonviolent offenses, minor infractions are being subjected to maximum level of security for juveniles, so that's what this is trying to address those, those kids who do not necessarily need to be in maximum level. What are
alternatives. That's what this is addressing right now it's at about $127,000 per year, per year. Annually And so my goal is to try and see how can we save the state and taxpayers' dollars by not incarcerating you that do not necessarily need that level of residential confinement in addition to being able to barely serve them in their communities and,
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:16:39
you know, I think that's a worthy goal, but I
I know this and I say this about adults too. What goes through our juvenile system. Normally is not the consequences of what the actions were. It's less because there's plea bargaining, plea bargaining, the system's overloaded. They don't want to put more in there than they have to, and I know what 6 decades ago. Uh My parents would have done to me if I'd done a fraction.
Of what's happening today that these kids get in the system. These kids are living in a world that's very complicated, I agree. And I'm not against your resolution in sense, but I don't want us just to bypass the fact. We've got to teach kids to do right. We've got to teach kids do not. Pushed the envelope. You're going to be held responsible. And there's consequences comes in their lifetimes of
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:17:49
consequences if they go down the wrong road sometimes. And I agree with you, Senator, Senator, I do. I totally agree with you, um, and it's unfortunate that some children are born into families that, you know, they don't necessarily have control over that, and they do get in trouble, but I think Senator, for some youth, if we can better serve them in the community instead of locking them in maximum level of security if that's an option, then.
Speaker 257
1:18:19
If we can utilize that. I agree with you
on that. Thank you. Senator Tucker, you're recognized. Thank you chair. I appreciate all the discussion because we should,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:18:29
we should work on this and it's good to understand what the work will entail, but just to kind of bring us back on what we're voting on today. My understanding is we're voting on identifying this as a goal. We're we're stating as a as a state, as a legislative body that our goal was to take a good look at this and to study it. We're not actually changing any
juvenile justice laws or saying what we have
to do. We're just saying this is something worth looking at and and we need to study it basically is what we're
Speaker 263
1:19:01
voting on today, right? Absolutely. All right. Thank
Speaker 264
1:19:06
you, Representative Senator Johnson. Senator Gilmore. While you're, while you're looking at this, if you'll give me one for 30 days. Oh I'll take it.
Other questions from committee. What the committee remind me so I don't have to ask the parliamentarian, uh, what power does a
resolution have? Thank you for that description Centra Johnson. Uh, I, I am correct that it has no Legal
authority, right? It's a, it's a purpose. Representative Senator, I like
the resolution I like, I like the title. And I like most ideas within, uh, I have a problem with lines 30 and 31 Devil's always in the detail. Details. A study is required for the retention of independent expert. Consultants. I always cringe when we go to spend big money.
Uh, to have people come in here and tell us now the people you have listed on the second page, I'm in complete agreement with I have a problem with saying that we're looking to retain consultants. I also have a problem. with not a huge problem, but a page 2 lines 5 and 6, It's well meaning, there's a pressing need to develop a juvenile justice reform plan,
and I agree with that. I agree with the need and I agree with having hearings and having people testify, but it says no later than 12 months and let me go to the practical side of that. When we leave here in a week, if we get out of here in a week, Through the end of May you're going to have a hard time getting a committee to meet. Once we're out, we kind of have an aversion to meetings for a while. That's just how the legislature reacts. June is very
difficult, uh, because half your people are on vacation. Half will show up. July is completely can't happen because everybody's going to conferences and we're not meeting, so you don't get started till August. I said all let's say you don't get started till
August, 12 months from now, puts us dead in the middle of fiscal session. Uh, so it's just while it's well meaning to say we won't do it in 12 months.
It's for a committee for a legislative committee to meet and do serious work, it takes longer, uh, you know, the whole interim period is the more likely, uh, so again, I'm just The wording's there and we pass it or fail it, uh, and so again because
I don't disagree at all with the need to develop a juvenile justice reform. Anything we can do. To better serve kids anything that we can do. I have been a
member of Children You probably, I think the only committee I have been on continuously since I've been here. Uh, and
so I very much applaud what you're trying to do, and I'm not saying that those things Since it doesn't have any binding power. But I want to be on the record today in this committee that I'm not for hiring a consultant.
I'm, I, I could be convinced. But, but every time we do that,
we spend lots of money and don't and generally don't see much results, and the fact that I think it's impossible to do it in 12 months, but beyond that, the whole
theory behind your resolution. Uh, I'm for, uh, other questions from committee. Wouldn't you agree?
since I didn't Wouldn't you agree that those
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:23:29
present some problems. I do, I do and in several things that you stated I agree with and I respect and also Senator
Tucker, I'm not trying to change any laws. I'm trying to get the conversation started and see what we can do, um, and I do want it to be thorough and detailed during the 86th General Assembly when it was thorough and it was detailed, the state did a wonderful job of reform, so I'm not trying however much time it takes for me to work with the committee on this process. I'm willing to do it. OK. I would rather That
you fixed a couple of things that I mentioned. Having said that, I don't know that it
keeps anyone else from voting for it, and I don't know you
fixing it causes anyone. To vote for it, so any other questions from committee. Senator Clark, we are in
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:24:21
agreement with The fee part and us not expending money to bring independent experts in, so I wanted to be on record for saying that as well if that would. Help us with the process of trying to get this through. I don't know that she has a lot of time to make any amendments to get back to the other end of the
chamber, and I know her heart and where she's trying to.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:24:48
Uh, I'm just trying to read the committee Senator Gilmore, yeah, and, and I mean, again, I think I can, I don't want to speak for my house chair, even though we have a very good relationship and she's a very good House member, um, I can speak for myself. I, I want to be very careful about how we use our money and who we, you know, who would, who would even do this work. I think we have a lot of folks, uh, in the state that are resident experts. I mentioned Judge Ernest Brown,
who is, uh, I think, tremendous in his work. Of what he's done with the GBI and the program in Pine Bluff that has seen real work, uh, a real outcomes.
So with that, I'm in agreement with the chair. I, I'm not gonna let perfect be in me the good, um, so I, I, I'm for the bill and I would make a motion at the proper time to do pass on this, but I just, again, I think we're
all in agreement of what the expectation is and all of that. So thank you. And I would also add, I think
you've got a great list of people there, and it's and it doesn't say
just those people. There's other people like the prosecutors because we want to hear, we want to hear all sides of this so, uh, would you like any other questions? Would you like to close for your resolution. I would just like to close
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:26:01
by saying thank you all for for hearing us today, and I'm closed. OK, will of the committee.
Motion to pass for Senator Gilmore, second from Senator
Johnson. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying I I'll post motion carried. Congratulations, Representative. You have passed your bill even with the dead weight you're carrying with you. Thank you, Senator. Senator Tucker. What's the, what's the bill number? OK, OK. Now.
OK. House Bill 1848, there are two amendment amendments and a handout. Can I
Speaker 278
1:26:55
have a copy of the handout? I have not seen
that. Yes, we will get you a copy of the handout, Senator Tucker. Thank you.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:27:27
I don't know what that is. I'm just saying it's not for
me. I don't know who it's from. Tucker, have you identified yourself
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:27:36
for the record? Clark Tucker's Senator District 14. Center Gilmore.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:27:57
And not that I don't have confidence in the good counselor there. These amendments don't conflict in any way, do they, OK, well then I would make a motion to do we need to
adopt them individually or do we need can we individually, um, what's what Centra Tucker like to present them.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:28:17
Sure. Uh First Amendment just deletes lines 31 to 33 on page 2. So with that, I'll move to adopt Senate Amendment 1.2.
of emotion in a second to adopt the amendment. Any discussion. All for the motion signified
by saying aye all against. Motion carried Amendment 1 is adopted to House Bill 1848. Would you like to present the 2nd Amendment? Yes, thank you,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:28:50
Mr. Chair. I'll get into it when I get into the bill, but this is a bill about
custody with people who have found to be domestic abusers, and there needs to be a
finding on the merits in court. We had a question about what type of court that hearing would be in, and so on page 1 line 31 after merits it as the language as part of a custody proceeding in a domestic relations court. It's part of the custody proceeding, not, not a criminal proceeding. So it just clarifies
Speaker 29
1:29:17
that and with that, I'll move to adopts sent
to and appreciate a good vote. Motion to adopt 22nd from Senator Gilmore in discussion. You're not all
for the motion signified by saying ah all post.
Congratulations, you have passed. Your amendment, perhaps with one vote, but Thank you. Thank
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:29:38
you, members, and I appreciate your patience. I've I've been waiting on just on the 2nd Amendment. That's why,
um, I've held off this morning for that one, and I and and BLR did great to get it to me when they did, which I'm grateful for, so, uh, what this, as you all know, we, we passed the bill in 2021, creates a presumption of joint custody in the case of divorce.
It has to be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. What this bill says is that if you're found by a court, by the same court that which the Amendment clarifies the same court that's conducting the custody proceeding. They have a hearing on the on the merits and find by a preponderance of the evidence that someone has engaged in domestic abuse. Then, then there's a presumption that it's in the best interests of the child, for the child not
to be placed in the sole custody or care of the person who is engaged in the domestic abuse. The subdivision 4 on page 2 on 19 is kind of the process for how, you know, a parent can who's been found to have engaged in domestic abuse can get that parenting time back from the court. That's what the bill does. I think I, I understand.
Don't you know, we want parents to have time with their kids. We also want to protect kids from parents who abuse them, and so I think this helps us achieve that balance and that's what the bill does, and I'm happy to take any
questions. Questions, Senator McKee. Thank you, Mr. Chair. On page 2. Up at
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:31:30
the top there. The definition of Domestic abuse.
Line 2. Says the infliction of fear or imminent physical harm. Right. Is there an old definition of domestic abuse that we could look at because the infliction of fear. I'm not a lawyer, but that seems really
Speaker 138
1:32:03
subjective. So this, this definition actually is copied and pasted from another section of Arkansas
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:32:11
code. It's, it's the language is underlined in the bill because it's new in this section, but I can't tell you what year the other language was adopted, but this is copied and pasted from another section of Arkansas code, so this
Speaker 18
1:32:23
is being used in determining if you let me grab my computer, I could tell you where the other code section is. What was the number 2 up at the top.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:32:42
The reason I bring this up, Senator Tucker, is because I know that in divorce cases where custody battles are going on. I haven't been through that, thank God, but I know that those can be very emotional and dramatic events for families and things are said and Accusations are made. Mr. Vander
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:33:06
we just helped me out here, which I appreciate the
Speaker 127
1:33:13
code section is 9-15-103 and it was adopted in 1991. OK, so what did that section of code deal
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:33:20
with? Well, you'll have to give me a second on that. Thank you. It's just the definition section, so I'm going to have to look to see what the context was. It's a good thing we have a lawyer
Speaker 254
1:33:38
on the committee. It is good. Once in a while they come in handy.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:33:44
Well, I heard a proposal several years ago that if you serve a certain number of years in the General Assembly, you should be granted a law license in the state of Arkansas. I think that's a really bad idea. Really bad idea. You have to be
Speaker 300
1:33:53
a lawyer to be a judge. That would really be a bad idea or a
Speaker 137
1:34:10
really good idea. You don't want to know my opinion on a lot of things. So,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:34:20
I'm still still working here, but Title IX
of the code is the family law code's title, and then this is in chapter 15. Which is the domestic abuse.
Speaker 138
1:34:32
Chapter of family law. So, so, so that's already in the definition of domestic abuse. I Is there a
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:34:37
reason it's not in this section already. Well, we are making new law with this,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:34:51
because we're incorporating that notion into the custody setting where where it's unless we pass this
law, it's not a part of the custody process right now explicitly, presumably, you know, it's always the best interest of the child is always the paramount concern for the judge when awarding custody. So you know the judge should be looking at it regardless, but this explicitly puts it into code that if if you've been found guilty, Well, I use that word guilty. The stand, you know, that's a
criminal term, but if you found by a judge of having engaged in a domestic abuse in a civil. family court proceeding, then there's a rebuttable presumption, and that's, you know, fancy lawyer lingo for uh it's not automatic that you cannot have custody of your child. You can overcome the presumption by demonstrating to the court that you're a good parent or it was a one-time event or whatever the case might be on a case by case
basis that you are entitled to have custody or care of your child.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:35:55
So I'm, I'm obviously I want to protect the kids and make sure they're not putting homes abusive people. I That just seems like really subjective language to me in a in a custody case specifically. I wonder if there was a reason why that wasn't included originally. I just don't think
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:36:14
it was contemplated, um. So you know I'm not a I've handled a couple of divorces in my career, OK, but I'm not a This is not my area of specialty
in the practice of law, OK, so I know enough to be dangerous, but generally speaking, If there's a serious custody issue like this or if there's an allegation of domestic abuse, then the court appoints what's called an attorney ad litem, which is a lawyer for the child because each of the parents gets to have their lawyers as they should, um, but the attorney ad litem looks out specifically for the interests of the child, which is also appropriate, especially in cases where there might be an allegation of domestic abuse. And the attorney ad litem, whose
sole interest is the interest of the child, not just the paramount interest,
but there's their sole interest. They're the ones who kind of flesh this, flesh this
out. Who, uh, excuse me, Senator McGee, who flush this out? The attorney ad litem, who's been appointed
by the court as a lawyer for the child. So again, I obviously wholeheartedly support each of the parents having their counsel. Their counsel is advocating for their client.
Their counsel and that There may be a conflict of interest at times between the best interests of their client and the best interests of the child, but the parents deserve to have their own lawyer there. The attorney ad litem. They're not looking out for the parents. They're looking out only for the child or the children as the case may be. And so they're the ones who are really having the direct conversations with the child about what's occurred. The
I have others in line, but Senator Tucker, uh, Who It is behind the
addition of all this language. Representative Hudson, so far as I know. No, there's somebody back behind that. I don't know. We just Representative Hudson, she's not a judge or an attorney, is she? I'm I may have misunderstood your question. What's who's behind?
All the additional language here in House Bill
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:38:38
1848. Um I, I don't know. This is, this is Representative Hudson's bill. Uh, if, if someone
approached, if you don't know, that's fine. The, because The joint custody law is fairly new. And was passed because
There was not only a feeling, it was factual, uh, that the with
many of our judges that One gender had an advantage over the other gender when it came to custody. And we had judges testify against joint custody. And one said that there were no judges like that, and then in the very next breath said, uh,
but the ones that are like that are retiring. Uh. So of course both
couldn't be true. Uh, the and as and you know who carried that bill. I did. And I find it interesting that I haven't seen This bill with the need to make changes to the joint custody law until now.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:40:08
You have any idea why I wouldn't have seen it before. No, sir. So a couple of things to to one point, I'm also not the Senate sponsor of this bill, and I just became engaged on this really in the last, I would say 24 to 36 hours that the last 24 to 36 hours have kind of run together. I can't say with precision, with precision when I first became engaged on this, and so, you know, when I did, I probably should have brought it to you, Mr. Chair, at that time,
and I'm sorry that that I did not do that, but My involvement point fingers at
you, but you understand my point. I do. I do. And you know, you and
I you and I have a difference of opinion. On the joint custody law, which is fine, I totally respect your position. I think the presumption of joint custody. For both parents is a good thing, you know, my, my concern, which I stated at the time to you was about the fact that the presumption could only be overcome with clear and convincing evidence, which every judge applies differently and so I think there's a lack of
consistency of the application in courts across Arkansas, and I, I personally, I'm sure I'm certain there are people who have benefited from that law since its passage in 2021. I personally know people who have suffered because of it because they've stayed in marriages within abusive parent because they feared they would not be able to overcome that presumption in a divorce proceeding, and their children would be with the abusive parent outside of their presence half the time, and they did not want to subject their
children to that, and I don't want to relitigate that. This is not attempting to relitigate that. The presumption of joint custody from the bill in 2021. It's a, it's a really narrow exemption that if the judge who's conducting the who would be making that determination. way about whether the presumption has been overcome by clear and convincing evidence. If the same judge determines that one of the parents has engaged in domestic abuse. It shifts the burden back to the parent who has been found to have been abusive, and I think
that's appropriate if the judge who's making your custody determination finds you have abused your kids. Then the burden of proof should shift back to you that you should be able to have access to
your kids, and we're having judges to testify
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:42:25
on this. Not that I'm aware of. I know Representative Hudson did put language in here at the request of the judicial council there goes
back to my first question, where it came from and that may be the case. I don't know the
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:42:37
answer to that. The, uh, because that's very
important and this had it. Had this been presented, been presented. And we had had weeks to discuss it. Perhaps I would have agreed with the language. Otherwise, when we were
presenting the bill back then, it would have been seen as a hostile amendment. Fair enough. The um So we have
a need for all kinds of new language that we didn't
have a need for then judicial counsel didn't present any of that, uh, the And I want to be sure that we stay, let me tell you, I have heard about the cases, Senator Tucker, where Right things were done and should have been done. I have heard about the cases where people thought Uh, that because one gender was no longer Uh, considered superior to raise the kids and have most custody
that how this bill was bad. Most of those cases I have actually heard, I'm not a judge. Most of those cases I've actually heard, but where's the abuse? That's what it because that's what the joint
custody bill is you have, you have to present the evidence. of abuse, and, and often, as you, as has been mentioned before, these things
get heated. People, it's all kinds of things. It's, and I deal with this more in DCFS. That I do I really don't deal with custody
cases at all, but and DCFS. I deal with it because it bleeds over because all of
a sudden, uh, A father Who has not been accused of anything. For years is all of a sudden
guilty of the worst kind of sexual abuse, and I have a question. I always have questions when that comes up as to
If he was sexually abusing the kids all this time. Why wouldn't we have said anything? Why does
it just come out now, because I find that almost criminal that you allowed, and I think the laws or finds one parent at least negligent if they allowed sexual abuse of their children and didn't
do anything about it. So Senator, I, I think, you
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:45:12
know, my opinion is, if you're a victim of abuse
and severe abuse, it's hard for me to pass judgment on how you handle the situation over a period of time and you've been conditioned where you have Stockholm syndrome or whatever the case might be, would I like to have seen something different? Sure, but I think that's easy for me to say when I wasn't in that situation. And if someone does eventually come forward and say, you know, I've had enough. I'm putting up with. I'm not putting up with this anymore, then We should, we should support
that person at that time, even if from the outside looking in we would
have liked to have seen something done sooner and because of that belief
we take these things very seriously at the same time, it often once the courts have heard everything, uh, we're making charges of abuse where there was no abuse, to get a leg up in custody hearings and although it's against the law, it appears
attorneys actually coach it, uh, what is the penalty? For those who claim it and
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:46:31
it didn't happen, it would be the same penalty for any other type of litigation proceeding. There's first of all, anytime you make a representation to a court or in a court, you're under penalty of perjury, and if you say anything that's false, then that's a crime in Arkansas. Those are for the parties and the witnesses for the attorneys on top of that, we have a rule of civil procedure Rule 11, that
we have to have a reasonable basis in law in fact for everything we present to a cop everything we present to a core and if we don't have a reasonable basis in law in fact for what we present to a court, then there can be disciplinary proceedings issued against the attorney who violates that standard, so that would be the case in this setting
and every other litigation setting and in reality when a when are either of those things
happening? It's rare. I, I'll grant you that. Other questions Senator Dees.
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:47:30
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, and Senator Tucker, you had mentioned some some of this earlier. I received a letter from a lawyer
that primarily practices in family law, and they may have, may or may not have testified on the House side, but they sent me some notes that I would love your thoughts on through this as well, and it was, uh, something to the tune of concerns around 1848 would circumvent the joint custody law from the 2021 law that we just referenced earlier, and then concerns around what's best
interests of the child to be in custody or care
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:48:07
and then finally, can we just take those one at a time? Sure, I'm
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:48:11
not sure I'm going to remember all let me go to this because this is the one I had the most. It was, it was, um, In their experience they describe that every in every divorce case that there's accusations thrown at the other party, and there was concern, I believe, in my layman's term, that this bill
Would, would create it where by just allegation alone. that there could be a decision made without proof of evidence of of abuse and the difference between abuse and violence. And so, and I think control, I'm going to get what's the what's the terminology control course of control. So in your opinion, when you hear me describe the concerns from this from this family lawyer. Is this bill going to make it easier for just allegations
alone to be a determining factor on custody, or is there still going to have to be evidence. Presented for abuse. I don't know if I made that clear or not, but you made
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:49:16
it very clear, and I'm really glad you asked that question because I want the answer to be equally clear. Before I answer, the course of
control language, I don't know, I'm not an expert on all the domestic violence bills coming through, but the course of control language is in another bill. It's not in this bill. The course of control language, so for what that's worth.
But your, your other question about whether this would empower allegations to affect custody, I think is in line with a question Senator Clark was asking and in line with the first point your constituent made about whether this would circumvent the custody law that we passed in 2021, and the answer is absolutely not. Because this is actually establishing it and this, I think, goes, if anything, I think in a way this is consistent with what we passed in 2021 because Senator Clark's goal was allegations, I mean, I
don't want to speak for Senator Clark. My understanding of one of Senator Clark's goals is allegations are not enough. You need to have proof. Right, I would align with that as well, and Senator Clark can and should correct me if I've misstated that, but what this has established a proceeding where you have to establish proof in front of a court at a at a court proceeding. And you have to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence, which is the same standard in any civil court.
And then if you prove it by a preponderance of the evidence. It doesn't mean the parent can't respond. It just means the burden of at the beginning, the burden of proof is on the parent who's making the allegation, but they have to satisfy that burden. They can't make the allegation and that be the end of it. They have to satisfy that burden of proof, and what this bill is saying is once you have satisfied that burden of proof to your judge's satisfaction. Then the burden of proof shifts to the person who the court has
found with evidence has a has abused the children. Right, thank you for that. Other questions from the committee. We have Brian Vandiver to testify against. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Brian
Speaker 203
1:51:41
Vandiver on behalf of Arkansas advocates for parental equality. And um I want to start by saying that that this absolutely has everything to do with Act 604 and the rebuttable presumption of joint custody that Senator Clark, uh, Representative Gassway, and others worked so very hard to pass 4 years ago. Um, we were very much a part of that process, and I'd like to share just quickly what we've
heard since the passage of that act. What we've heard since the passage of that act that it has been a very good change in the law that it has worked as we had anticipated that it has reduced litigation and custody cases and made the process much more fair for all parents. We have heard that it has focused the litigation on um the cases that truly need to be litigated in family court, and that comes from not only litigants, but lawyers and
judges as well. In fact, in discussing Amendments on this very bill 1848, which the predecessor of it was 1434, and I'll speak to that in a moment, but in discussions with Representative Hudson, who was one of the most vocal opponents of Act 604. She went to the well to speak against it 4 years ago, and she admitted in discussions that yes that that act has actually worked, and she sees that now. Um, and so, uh, and I would also
say that Judge Amy Johnson Moore of Pulaski County Circuit Judge who helped work on this bill also has has said openly that Act 604 is a good, a good act and is working well in family court. What this bill does in our concerns with it are, are a couple. Um, as has been discussed, there are exceptions to what we did in Act 604, exceptions to the presumption of joint custody. One is if you have evidence by clear and
convincing that it's not in the best interests. But the other exception, another exception is if one of the um presumptions that was already in the code applies, and there were 21 is at issue here, the domestic violence or domestic abuse exception. That exception was in the code prior to Act 604. Um We worked with Representative Hudson on changing what used to be 1434 and, and a lot of the
amendments were made that we suggested and we appreciate the good work that she did on that, uh, to make it more palatable. However, there are still problems. Number one, going to the definition of domestic abuse. What this does is it copies and pastes the definition of domestic abuse from the different code. that Senator Clark referred to, which is the domestic Violence Act that was adopted in 1991. That act was adopted for a
different purpose, particularly for orders of protection and domestic abuse situations, and under that code section, originally it was limited to physical and and sexual abuse. What we'll see in another bill that that there are some who want to expand that definition of abuse. And What what we had an objection to was that copy and and and that cross reference to that section. So we asked that the actual
language be included in this bill to limit it just to physical abuse and sexual abuse. The problem is it still changes the language of the custody code because the exception in the custody code talks about domestic violence. And I think that there's always been a question of, is that something different than domestic abuse, and we would say that yes, what this does is it
expands that definition from domestic violence to domestic abuse and creates more opportunities for this exception to apply then would would have existed before this bill. In other words, it, it creates a bigger window, a bigger opportunity for those who wish to claim domestic abuse under the custody code section and use that to their advantage.
And now to Senator Clark's question of who's behind this bill, I think I can answer that, and that's the Arkansas Coalition Again Domestic Violence. The the courts did not, this is not part of judicial council's bill package. This is not brought formally on behalf of AOC or the judges. It's my understanding that this was drafted and and promoted by the Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Uh, with which Judge Amy Moore has worked and, and she and I
again worked together on making this better, but as I said, there's still problems with that definition. Let me go to a second and and more problematic problem. We worked successfully with Representative Hudson in the House side on 1434, the predecessor to this bill to remove specific language. And the phrase is or care in in the bill, and it's on page 2.
Um Let me get my lines of There it is. So 1848, page two, if you look at line 9 and line 17. So what we have in this version of the bill is a phrase custody or care. And we had worked specifically to eliminate that phrase or care
because that phrase doesn't make sense in the code. This section of the code specifically relates to custody. And having that phrase or care in there is nonsensical. It, it, that's what the next section of the code deals with that begins on line 19. And so I, I don't know if that's a scrivener's error or um something else, but that's a problem that we noted with 1434,
it was corrected on the House side and now with this new bill, it has reappeared. Um, so that's that's Another problem that that we see. Uh, we just had the opportunity to digest the amendments from this morning and that cures one of another problem that we had with regard to the domestic intervention program that's now been deleted from this bill, so we're happy with that amendment, um. But I would, I would just end with, we worked very hard 4
years ago to pass what we and many others say is one of the most monumental and positive changes in family law in our state's history, and it has overwhelmingly worked very well, and we are very much opposed to any opening of reducing the effect of Act 604, and we think that the way that this bill is written unfortunately does that. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Questions from committee. Harry Nunn, thank you for your testimony. We have one more signed up to testify, Gina and Deacato to testify against. Good morning, Chair. My comments were going to
Speaker 316
1:59:46
be about the identify yourself with the record I'm sorry, my name's Gina Indelicao, and I'm with Arkansas Advocates for Parental Equality, and my comments were going to be in regard to the domestic
violence intervention programs, which I was able to talk to the sponsors about, and they had amended out, so that's what the handout was for, and so my testimony on that is not necessary
at this point. All right, thank you. Uh There is no one else testified for against Senator Tucker. You're recognized close for the
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:00:19
bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and you know, I always appreciate the engagement and participation of Mr. Vandiver and um
Everyone in the process, the process is better when there are more people, more people engaged when they're being thoughtful, so I just want to say that a couple of procedural things while they were testifying, Mr. Chair, I did receive a text and Mr. Vanderver said this, but in no uncertain terms, this is not a judicial council bill. I don't know if the Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence brought it to Representative Hudson. I do believe they support it. I don't know where it originated, so just clarifying that as a final note, I do want to say you know, on the record, not an
excuse and I know you weren't digging at me, Monsieur. I know you weren't, but I still not an excuse, not an excuse but an explanation. As soon as I became engaged on this, I should have come directly to you, and I just want to say I'm sorry for not doing that. I should have done that. on the substance of the bill, I do believe ultimately that this, I agree with Mr. Vandiver, and I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I do think that there's a lack of clarity right now as to what qualifies. and the code, and I think this
helped clarifies what qualifies as domestic abuse for a judge to consider in a custody proceeding, so when it boils down to it, you know, for your vote on this bill, the question for you is, if The judge and the custody proceeding has found with evidence that one of the parents has domestically abused the children should the burden of proof shift to that parent to demonstrate to the judge that they should have time with their time alone with their kid. I, I believe the answer to that is
yes, that is in the best interests of the children. I'm comfortable with saying that across the board in every case, and so that's, that's why I am supportive of House Bill 1848, and I would
appreciate a good vote and I'll move to pass on the bill as
amended. But Of motion from Senator Tucker, a 2nd from Center Ds. I'm sorry,
Gilmore. Center days is what I had a hard time making that second, wouldn't he?
The, uh, discussion. Senator Tucker. I would have not been at all surprised if somebody had approached me. Uh, with any legislation, especially major legislation to say, hey, here's some, here's some after it's been in practice for a while, here's some changes that we think ought to be made, and I think, you know, as most other people know that I am reasonable enough to sit down
and find out that indeed there are improvements that can be made
when That isn't the way it happens. You have to be sufficient suspicious not only of motives but of the words. Uh, and the Uh, no one, including yourself, has presented compelling
evidence as to why we need a change and like I said, I'd be glad to sit down
and talk to judicial counsel to talk to whoever and if there are such changes that need to be made. I'll be on board, but not having had those conversations. I have to see it as an attempt to subvert what was done, uh, and And uh I would appreciate the committee voting no. Other discussion. Harry Nunn, all for the motion signified by saying a.
All opposed? No.enator Tucker, the bill has failed. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, members. Have we got anything else up? No one
else has got a bill to present. What we're going to do, committee, unless you tell me something different is we're going to recess rather than adjourn a recess upon the call of the chair. It's not my intention. If we
come back this afternoon to hear anything controversial, but don't, don't anybody think that we won't and therefore not be here so but you know that. All kinds of things come up here in the last few days and so I want to leave the door open that if we need to help somebody get a bill through or just hear a bill that we can do that, hearing no objection to that.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
SB461
J. Scott
TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN
SB548
G. Leding
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; AND TO REQUIRE
SB549
G. Leding
TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A DEFENDANT IN A
SB566
B. King
PROVIDE FOR FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT, OR
SB581
B. King
TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND
SB143
B. King
TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE TO COORDINATE
SB145
HB1611
TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025.
HB1829
Dalby
TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; TO PROVIDE FOR REMOTE
HB 1875 TOSH TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE MANDATORY PERIOD FOR THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE.
SB628
Gilmore
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COURT TRANSCRIPT FEES; AND TO
SB630
B. Davis
TO REQUIRE ONLY A COURT TO FIX PUNISHMENT IF A DEFENDANT IS
SR65 TUCKER TO SUPPORT ARKANSAS'S ENGAGING THE JUSTICE COUNTS METRICS AND TO URGE POLICYMAKERS THROUGHOUT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITIES TO IMPLEMENT AND UTILIZE THE JUSTICE COUNTS METRICS
HB1764 UNDERWOOD AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTIONS
HB 1895 DALBY TO ALLOW A COROPRATION OFR VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION TO EMPLOY INHOUSE ATTORNEY'S TO REPRESENT AFFILIATES OF THE COROPORATION OR VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION.
HB1921 DEES TO AMEND THE CHILD WELFARE AGENCY LICENSING ACT; TO AMEND THE TRAINING AND SERTIFICATION PROCESS FOR FOSTER PARENTS AND TO STREAMLINETHE PROCESS OF TRAININGAND CERTIFYING RELATIVES AS FOSTER PARENTS.
ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS.
SB462 J. Scott TO CREATE A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYABILITY FOR A PERSON WITH A
FELONY CONVICTION; AND TO ALLOW THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION AND CIRCUIT COURTS TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF EMPLOYABILITY.
SB477 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield
SB501 J. Scott TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A LANDLORD TO PROVIDE CERTAIN NOTICE TO A TENANT WHEN A COURT HAS
ISSUED A WRIT OF POSSESSION.
THAT NOTICE OF A WARRANT BE SENT TO THE PERSON NAMED IN THE ARREST WARRANT.
CRIMINAL CASE SHALL BE REFUNDED UPON AN ACQUITTAL, A DISMISSAL, OR AN ORDER OF NOLLE PROSEQUI.
CONSTRUCTION OF STATE AND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; AND TO ADDRESS PRISON OVERCROWDING.
TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT.
HB1848 Hudson TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS IS IN A CHILD'S BEST INTEREST WHEN THERE IS DOMESTIC ABUSE.
WITH LOCAL SHERIFFS AND THE DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION IN CRIME REDUCTION AND PREVENTION ACTIVITIES.
SB144 B. King CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER TO THE
DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO PROVIDE FOR A DESIGNATED DIAGNOSTIC INTAKE FACILITY; AND TO CREATE COUNTY JAIL-STATE INMATE CLOSE-TO- HOME PARTNERSHIPS.
B. King TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS RESULTING FROM LITIGATION INVOLVING THE USE OF FUNDS FROM THE GENERAL IMPROVEMENT FUND OR ITS SUCCESSOR FUND OR FUND
ACCOUNTS.
Gonzales TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ANIMAL FIGHTING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ROOSTER FIGHTING.
SB595 G. Leding TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN BEFORE A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION.
SB609 J. Scott TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN BEFORE A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION.
TESTIMONY IN CERTAIN INSTANCES IN A HEARING UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; AND TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT FOR A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM.
DEVICE; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE MANDATORY PERIOD
FOR THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE.
SB509 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield
HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY.
INCREASE THE TRANSCRIPT FEES TO WHICH A COURT REPORTER IS
ENTITLED.
SB631 B. Davis TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING HEARINGS ON THE REVOCATION OF
PROBATION OR SUSPENSION.
CHARGED WITH A FELONY OR MISDEMEANOR; AND TO REQUIRE ONLY A
JUDGE TO SENTENCE A DEFENDANT FOR A CHARGE THAT RESULTS IN A CONVICTION.
C. Tucker TO URGE POLICYMAKERS THROUGHOUT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ENTITIES TO IMPLEMENT AND UTILIZE THE JUSTICE COUNTS METRICS.
Underwood PROTECTION.
Dalby TO ALLOW A CORPORATION OR VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION TO EMPLOY IN- HOUSE ATTORNEYS TO REPRESENT AFFILIATES OF THE CORPORATION OR
VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION.
TRAINING AND CERTIFICATION PROCESS FOR FOSTER PARENTS; AND TO STREAMLINE THE PROCESS OF TRAINING AND CERTIFYING RELATIVES AS FOSTER PARENTS.
HCR1010 T. Shephard REQUESTING A STUDY OF WAYS TO IMPROVE THE STATE'S JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM FOR YOUTH.
HB1433 K. Moore TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS EXECUTING OR SERVING AN ORDER OF PROTECTION TO SERVE ANY OUTSTANDING CRIMINAL WARRANTS RELATED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR OFFENSES INVOLVING THE PETITIONER AS THE VICTIM.
HB1529 S. Meeks TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL CREATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL; AND TO ESTABLISH A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR UNLAWFUL CREATION OF DEEPFAKE VISUAL MATERIAL.
HB1877 S. Meeks CONCERNING CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO POSSESSION OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT MATERIAL THAT DEPICTS A CHILD; AND TO INCLUDE A COMPUTER GENERATED IMAGE THAT IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE IMAGE OF A CHILD.
HB1931 Beaty Jr. TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1964 Brooks TO MOVE THE CHILD WELFARE OMBUDSMAN DIVISION AND THE JUVENILE OMBUDSMAN DIVISION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF INSPECTOR GENERAL; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
DEFERRED BILLS
HB1726 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT.
SB356 J. Bryant TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE ARKANSAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER BY THE OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT OR CRIME VICTIMS REPARATIONS BOARD.
SB5 B. King TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE.
SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM.
SB452 B. King CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR RECYCLING OF WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
SB472 J. Bryant TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION OF AN E-LIQUID
PRODUCT OR VAPOR PRODUCT BY A MINOR.
Adjourn
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Apr 9, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Alan Clark Chair
Unverified
Speaker 11
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 21
Speaker 23
Jacqueline Mcewan
Unverified
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Speaker 50
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Speaker 69
Speaker 75
Speaker 85
Speaker 93
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
Gina Indelicato
Unverified
Speaker 103
Speaker 106
Speaker 117
Speaker 124
Speaker 127
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Speaker 136
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 154
Chair
Unverified
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Speaker 162
Speaker 171
Speaker 81
Speaker 174
Speaker 95
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
Speaker 165
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Speaker 201
Speaker 203
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
Speaker 224
Speaker 161
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
Speaker 87
Speaker 241
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
Speaker 244
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
Speaker 139
Speaker 258
Speaker 257
Speaker 263
Speaker 264
Speaker 278
Speaker 29
Speaker 138
Speaker 18
Speaker 254
Speaker 300
Speaker 137
Speaker 316