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
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 6, 2026
Unknown speaker
0:00
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We'll call this meeting to order. If we could lower the volume a little
bit. Have we got any senators here to run Senate bills?
Have we got anybody here to
run bills? Y'all have hesitated too long. 1895,
that sounds like a TV series. House Bill 1895.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
3:34
about. Senator Tucker, if you would 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, which is currently legal under 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 two corporate entities that are closely related through means of control, including a subsidiary, a parent, or that sort of thing, then you can have a lawyer do work for both at the same time under the code. That's it. Questions from committee?
Speaker 21
4:41
NEW SPEAKER: SENATOR STOBELFIELD? IS ANYBODY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS BILL? NEW SPEAKER: NOT
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
5:01
THAT I'M AWARE OF. ACTUALLY I HAD A FEW LAWYERS REACH OUT TO ME ACTUALLY BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT MIGHT HURT LAWYERS' ABILITY TO GET CLIENTS IF YOU HAVE ONE LAWYER working for multiple entities. And I had another question about whether a lawyer for an insurance
carrier could represent the insured. I don't believe that's true because we have law on the books that there's 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 corporate entities that have control over the other. So the conversations I have with 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
5:43
long have we had it we're only one lawyer i don't know
senator okay thanks senator tucker again just one sentence what does the bill do and then why do we WE NEED
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
6:04
IT. IT ALLOWS COMPANIES THAT MIGHT HAVE, THAT ARE CLOSELY HELD
TOGETHER AND RELATED EITHER A PARENT, SUBSIDIARY OR SIBLING TO HAVE ONE LAWYER DOING 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.
OKAY. HEARING NO OTHER QUESTIONS, THERE'S NO ONE HERE TO TESTIFY FOR OR AGAIN. SENATOR TUCKER,
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED AND CLOSED FOR YOUR BILL. I'M CLOSED. I APPRECIATE A GOOD VOTE. I MOVED
TO PASS. SECOND FROM SENATOR STOVELFIELD. DISCUSSION. HEARING NONE. ALL FOR THE MOTION SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIED. SENATOR TUCKER, YOU HAVE PASSED YOUR BILL.
I'm, Senator Tucker, going to go ahead in this
little lull and run House Bill 1964. Senator Stubblefield, if you'll take the chair. Anyone to testify for him? You've got a copy of that in 64.
Thank you. Senator Clark, if you'll recognize yourself. Alan Clark, State Senate, District 7. And
Mr. Chair, I'm going to ask Tiffany Wright, DCFS director to come to the table help me with your approval okay that's right we identify yourself for the record
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
8:05
good morning I'm Tiffany Wright I'm the
Jacqueline Mcewan
Unverified
8:13
director for the division of
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
8:16
children and family services all right you are recognized
present 90 a 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 two people now to take my place
at 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 they're still families and children that fall in the gap all this does is at that time we went around the world to try to find a place to put the ombudsman and and it varied 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 to the inspector general's office and and everyone including UAMS is
good with this be happy to take any questions all right Senator Tucker you're
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
9:38
right you guys for questions thank you Mr.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
9:41
Chair so I know what an ombudsman does generally but I'm not sure I know what this
ombudsman specifically does can you just educate me
Speaker 50
9:53
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 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 we try to evaluate systems changes and improvements. Okay. I
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
10:32
take it from that explanation. It's complaints about their 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
10:46
has, TOTALLY. SO IT'S CITIZENS TRYING TO GET ISSUES RESOLVED WITH ANYONE IN THE CHAM. OKAY, THANK YOU.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
10:54
ALL RIGHT, SENATOR RICE, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR
QUESTIONS. SENATOR GILMORE, YOU RECOGNIZE FOR QUESTIONS.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
11:07
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SENATOR CLARK ON PAGE, 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 colon and then it lists one and two there. What line number? So on page 12 line 15 starting line 15. It looks like new language but I don't know if it's just because we're porting language from one spot to another. Did you see that? I do. I'm reading it, Senator Gilmore.
Yep. Looks like new language, it came from the Division of Youth Services for some
Speaker 69
12:26
reason. If Ms. Wright would like to speak to it.
Yes, we're not moving, just one
Speaker 50
12:35
ombudsman. This bill moves both ombudsman, 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 new language or
not. And Senator Gilmore, I don't
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
13:00
know either. Well, and again, maybe it's fine.
talking about ombudsman, you know. It looks like it has been removed on pages two through six. and rewritten as you've suggested might have happened okay yeah you
said pages what again two through six two through six okay i'm looking in line 33.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
13:37
yep and 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
14:01
again i don't necessarily think there's any any you know well i'm not as trusting actually as
YOU SENATOR GILMORE, BUT THIS BILL SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT MOVING THE TWO TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL. I WOULD JUST
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
14:22
WANT TO KNOW IF IT'S PORTED LANGUAGE. SENATOR GILMORE, NOT SO MUCH
BECAUSE YOU QUESTIONED IT, BECAUSE YOU RAISED QUESTION IN MY MIND. I'D LIKE
TO PULL THIS BILL DOWN AND GET SOMEBODY IN HERE THAT KNOWS, preferably this morning all right thank
Speaker 85
14:35
you senator all right thank you next up
is House Bill 1875, Representative Tosh, if you would identify yourself for the record.
Speaker 93
15:22
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'm Representative Dwight Tosh, District 38. Representative
Tosh, you are recognized to present House Bill
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
15:37
1875. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. members, this bill deals with the interlock system. Before I 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. Well, they don't really give you an option. Your driver's license are suspended for six months. House Bill 1875. Sorry, Representative Tosh, go ahead. Okay, thank you. Your driver's license are suspended for six months. Once your driver's license are suspended, you have the option whether to just accept that and go on and for six months not drive an automobile.
However, if you choose and you want to be able to drive, then you can have an interlock system installed in your vehicle. And that's the current law. We're not changing any of that. What we are changing is that six months, if you choose to have the interlock system in your vehicle, for the first four months of the six 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 in the last 60 days while that interlock system is on your vehicle during that six months, for the last 60 days, if you attempt to start that vehicle and you go over the limit that's calibrated 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. 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 bill is a behavioral change. And so we give them the first four months, and we don't charge them or count any violations against them. But after four 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 six months, we're going to have someone back on the highway drinking and driving. So we're just trying to get their attention during that last 60 days, trying to, like I said, establish a behavioral change. Thirty-five states have already adopted this legislation. You know, we passed it out of the judiciary on the House end with all yes votes. It passed the House floor with all yes votes.
And this bill is supported by the National Traffic Safety Council. MAD testified for this bill during the House Judiciary. It's supported by the district courts, by the circuit courts, by all law enforcement officers, each agency here in the state. It's just 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'd be happy
to take any questions. Representative Tosh, it
sounds like you have struck about as good a balance as I've seen a bill coming through here this session. Questions from the committee?
We have some folks to testify for and against. We will start with the against. Nope, wrong bill. We've got one to speak for. uh don't kill the bill okay uh teresa brewer blue
Gina Indelicato
Unverified
19:53
i'm sorry you'll identify yourself for the record
Speaker 103
20:10
yes i'm teresa bellew i'm representing mothers against
drunk driving as I volunteer and on the regional board working on policy and I certainly don't want to do anything to kill the bill or the fine job that that Representative Tosh 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 two words, 12 million. When I first came to work with
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, my first day on the job I was told that in two 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 while I was up here in the rotunda at my first press conference, we were working on lowering BAC from 0.10 to 0.08, and I asked 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 us strong DWI rules 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 y'all have done excellent work. That is a great catch that if you are, if the
device is having to keep you from stopping the car in that last two months, you still have a problem.
And continuing it for another two months and another two months without criminal charges, just I think you couldn't have cut the balance, made it any closer to what it ought to be. So we'll commend you. Any questions for the witness from the committee, Senator Stouperville? Yes, ma'am. Ms. Brewer,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
22:50
I was going to vote for this bill until you said you knew Representative Tosh.
Speaker 106
22:59
Well, politics makes for strange bedfellows. That's a true statement. Okay, for the record, I have never been a bedfellow with Representative Tosh. That's just, I'm going to stop talking now, okay? Now I'm really glad you
came to the table. Duly noted. Sometime ask me about how Representative Tosh saved my life one time. I'm
Speaker 106
23:26
not asking anything about Representative Tosh ever again.
He's turning off my mind. Any other questions from committee
for this witness? Hearing none, then we appreciate you being here, Ms. Ballou. Representative Tosh, would you
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
23:53
Chairman, thank you, and I appreciate you for being here, and I appreciate a good vote, and I'm closed with my bill.
Do pass. Do pass from Senator Rice. Thank you. Second from Senator Stovallfield. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? 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. Thank you. Okay. I saw two senators enter the room.
I only see one now, and he's leaving. Do you have a Senate bill?
That was your bill. I take all my compliments back. Back
to the committee. Oh, Senator Hester, do you have a Senate bill? No. Not yet? Okay.
Do you have
a House bill?
Speaker 127
25:25
TURKER: SENATOR TURKER: SENATOR TURKER, WOULD YOU IDENTIFY
YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD CLARK TUCKER SENATOR DISTRICT 14 SENATE RESOLUTION 65 HAS AN AMENDMENT SENATOR TUCKER WOULD YOU
LIKE TO EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENT IT JUST CLARIFIES
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
25:53
A COUPLE OF FACTS MENTIONED IN THE RESOLUTION AND MAKES THEM MORE
ACCURATE OKAY MOTION TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT MOVED TO ADOPT MOTION FROM SENATOR TUCKER second from senator stubblefield any discussion
hearing none all for the motion signify by saying
aye aye all opposed motion carried uh senate resolution 65 is amended uh senator tucker you are recognized to present resolution 65. thank you mr chair thank you
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
26:21
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 which as you can see, when the bill starts, it's led by the U.S. 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 get any. But if the agency does want their help, then the Justice Council 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. THE POINT OF THE RESOLUTION. QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE? SENATOR RICE.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
27:45
SENATOR TUCKER, WAS THIS NEEDED MORE BECAUSE OF THE POLICIES OF THE PREVIOUS DEPARTMENT of Justice that many of us had great concerns with or do you think the new one that we don't know about yet? My understanding is this
Speaker 136
28:01
policy is part of the Department of Justice regardless of
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
28:07
who the president is. I believe it's been there for several administrations including the previous Trump administration. Do you think this will be helpful?
I do think it will be helpful, yes, sir. Thank you. Other questions
from committee? HEARING NONE, NO TESTIMONY FOR OR AGAINST, SENATOR TUCKER, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO CLOSE FOR SENATE RESOLUTION 65. I APPRECIATE YOU ALL'S TIME AND I WOULD
APPRECIATE A GOOD VOTE, I MOVE TO PASS. MOTION FROM SENATOR TUCKER AS AMENDED,
SECOND FROM SENATOR GILMORE. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL FOR THE MOTION, SIGNIFY by saying aye all opposed motion carried senator you have passed in a resolution 65 senator tucker house
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
29:13
bill 1931 thank you mr. chair senator gilmore district 1. so this is the companion bill to
Senate Bill 590. 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, are you closed for your bill? NEW SPEAKER: MAKING A MOTION TO PASS. NEW SPEAKER: MOTION TO PASS FROM SENATOR
GILMORE, A RELUCTANT SECOND FROM SENATOR MCKEE. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL FOR THE MOTION SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. CONGRATULATIONS, SENATOR GILMORE, YOU HAVE PASSED HOUSE
BILL 1931. I AM GOING TO ASK SENATOR STOBELFIELD TO COME take over the chair again and we're going to try to run House Bill 1964 again.
Senator Clark, if you'll go ahead and identify yourself and
your guests. State Senator Alan Clark,
Speaker 50
31:03
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 child welfare 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. We're happy to take any questions. All right, committee, any questions? Yeah, because
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
31:36
I raised the question, I just want to clear it up. It is ported language. I'm good. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
31:42
QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE? ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE BILL? ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NONE, YOU WANT TO CLOSE FOR YOUR BILL, SENATOR CLARK.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I AM CLOSED. I APPRECIATE A GOOD VOTE. AND I MAKE A MOTION DO PASS. WE HAVE A MOTION DO PASS BY SENATOR RICE, SECOND
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
32:11
BY SENATOR GILMORE. ANY DISCUSSION? all those in favor say aye
Speaker 148
32:20
all opposed the bill passes central clerk thank you
If we got any other bills, there we go. Representative Meeks is here. What
bill, Representative Meeks? I have to the chairman of
1529 and 1877. House Bill 1529, committee. Okay. House Bill 1529, representative, would you and your guests identify yourselves for the
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
33:13
record? Yes. Representative Steven Meeks, district 42.
Speaker 154
33:17
Good morning. Justin Brasher, senior assistant attorney general with the Arkansas
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
33:22
AG's office. Thank you, committee, Mr. Chairman. So the idea for this bill for me came from an AI conference that I attended this summer. They told us the story of, I guess it happened in Connecticut, where boyfriend and girlfriend were in a relationship -- oh, I'm sorry, make sure I'm not blowing you out here.
Boyfriend and girlfriend were 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, put it in an illicit photo, and either create it 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 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 Arkansas. 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. BERSHEAR HAS ANY WORDS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO IT, THEN I WILL TURN
Speaker 154
35:06
IT OVER. THANK YOU, REPRESENTATIVE MEAKS. I'M NOT
Chair
Unverified
35:10
BLOWING EVERYBODY OUT HERE. AM I? WE'RE GOOD? OKAY. YES, THIS IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. WE SUPPORT THIS BILL. WHEN WE SAW THAT REPRESENTATIVE MEAKS HAD FILED IT, WE HAD ALREADY BEEN WORKING ON A COUPLE 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 taken 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 language both the
identifiable as well as the language that is on lines 10 to 14 of page 2 is specific where it says such an ordinary person viewing the deep fake visual material will conclude that the depiction is of the identifiable person in sexual contact or other things is specific so that we are not it's not overbroad in getting things that would then be considered speech. The other thing to be considered here is that 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 it 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 uh 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're recognized for a question thank you mr
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
37:31
chair and thank you representative meeks for bringing this bill i think it's a very good idea and very well 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, is intent part of the
Chair
Unverified
37:54
process? So a couple things. First is again, it needs to be in a state of nudity or engaging in sexual contact.
So that's the first part of this. But second is if you look at the, it does need to be distributed. 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? WHAT IS THE PENALTY FOR A CLASS A MISDEMEANOR AND FOR A CLASS D FELONY?
Speaker 162
38:34
OH, BOY. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO PULL THIS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I do the one the prosecutors could one of y'all answer
that real quickly Okay, thank you the answer was one year and $4500 fine for a class a misdemeanor and up to six years and a
$10,000 fine for a Class
D felon. Other questions from committee? Hearing none, Jeff Rosenzweig is signed
up to speak against. Mr. Rosenzweig, if you
Speaker 167
39:26
will identify yourself for the record. Jeff Rosenzweig, Arkansas. Jeff
Speaker 171
39:30
Rosenzweig, Arkansas, Associates of Criminal Defense Lawyers. 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 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. Bresher referred.
Ashcroft decision talked about creation of things overbroad, overbred because some things may be artistic. Now, obvious, and as 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 an image of, let's say, Donald Trump having some sort of 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 extortion, of course, which is obviously a form of communication, that's a crime. 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
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
41:32
would be the proper time to respond to that, but we do have a response once the
committee finishes with their questions. Yeah, proper time will be closing unless somebody asks you a question while they're asking him
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
41:49
a question. Question from committee? Senator Stubblefield? Mr. Rosenzweig, are you referring to the line on number 18, second page, where it says
Speaker 174
42:01
unlawful creation or distribution? Okay, unlawful creation. It says unlawful, of
Speaker 171
42:07
course, the title of it is unlawful creation or distribution. And then if you look at line eight, for instance, knowingly creates or distributes. In other words, it's a crime merely to knowingly create. I can create 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 proposition here. That the, I am confident that a court would hold that the mere creation without any distribution or threat to distribute and just for simple possession of it, particularly in a political parity context, is going to be held woefully overbroad and will bring the whole statute down.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
43:32
Could AI be used in this
Speaker 171
43:38
situation? Yeah, you know, AI could be used in it. 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 a crime under this. And that is going to clearly violate the First Amendment.
Other questions from committee? Hearing none, thank you, Mr. Rosenzweig. The representative, make sure you
Speaker 95
44:23
are recognized to close for your bill. Thank you,
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
44:26
colleagues. So obviously 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 take my image and create one of these compromising, I'd say that that is an invasion of my privacy.
Would any of you be okay if a pervert took a picture of your wife or daughter and created that and put that on their computer and say that's okay 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 okay 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
done with that I'll turn it over to
Chair
Unverified
45:51
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 as 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 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 support
at the federal level as well will the committee motion do pass from Senator Stouffield second from Senator Deese any discussion
hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye all opposed motion carried congratulations representative Meeks you'll pass
your bill I am going to interrupt you before you present the next one and I'll let Senator Dees
uh present a bill so he can get back out
of here all right we'll slide out of the way okay okay I got
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
46:56
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 has been a non-controversial 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 just it it makes it more efficient for for the families so that it really encourages foster care and makes that easier for families and if you look at states nearby we 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 WITH THAT, HAPPY TO TAKE ANY
QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE? SENATOR DEESE, GOOD JOB. HEARING NO QUESTIONS, THERE'S NO ONE
to testify for against center dees are you closed for your bill i'm closed and make a motion do pass motion to pass second from center stubblefield any discussion hearing
none all for the motion signify by saying aye all opposed motion carried congratulations center dees you have passed house bill 1921 uh representative meeks uh you are recognized and represented more we re we realize you are here now we have a an amendment for this uh
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
48:52
mr chairman okay and what bill number is it
it is uh house bill 1877. house
bill 1877 and we'll pass out the amendment
rep to representative meeks are you ready to present the amendment
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
49:11
uh yes mr chairman so uh This is an idea that came to us from industry. So, this bill is going to be related to 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. And so that's 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. Second from Senator McKee. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion. Signify by saying aye. All opposed. Motion carried. Amendment is adopted. Thank you, committee. Representative Meeks, you are recognized to present House Bill 1877
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
50:16
as amended. 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 nutshell, like I said, is it makes it illegal for AI-generated child pornography. It 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're 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 photography. Questions from committee? Questions from committee?
Speaker 165
51:09
Hearing no questions from committee. no one signed up
to speak for or against uh will of the uh would you like to close for your bill uh
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
51:27
yes colleagues i'm uh closed and i would just ask that you would support us in our efforts to
put these protections in place for our children with that would appreciate a
good vote will of the committee motion do pass from senator mckee second from as amended
second from senator gilmore all any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye all opposed motion CARRIED CONGRATULATIONS REPRESENTATIVE MICKS YOU
HAVE PASSED YOUR BILL AS AMENDED REPRESENTATIVE MORE WHAT BILL REPRESENTATIVE
HOUSE BILL 1433 WOULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
52:13
THE RECORD KINDRA MOORE STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT
23 Representative Moore, you are recognized to present House
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
52:24
Bill 1433. Thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 1433 simply adds that a law enforcement officer who is serving an order of protection for domestic violence checks for those active warrants before serving that order of protection. 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 Council, the Arkansas Police Chiefs Association, and the Arkansas Sheriff's Association. And with that, I'll try to answer
any questions. Questions from committee? Hearing no questions
from committee. We have Brian Vandiver to speak against.
Speaker 201
53:14
- Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Brian Vandiver on behalf of Arkansas Advocates for Parental Equality. I wanna commend Representative Moore on her bill 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 amending it.
But we still have concerns, and I'd like to try to explain
Speaker 203
53:55
those. What this bill does is it conflates criminal law and civil law. An order of protection is basically an injunction in civil family court. And what this would do is it would require a check from law enforcement before serving that civil order of protection to see if there is a criminal arrest warrant.
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 a sense by petitioners, lawyers.
It further incentivizes that weaponization of an order of protection to use it as an offensive sword. 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 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 unfairness in how the oral protection law should be applied and our organization is opposed to this bill for those reasons. Questions from committee?
MR. VANDEVER, WHEN THE ORDER OF PROTECTION IS ORIGINALLY SERVED, IS THERE A HEARING
Speaker 201
56:10
AFTER THAT? YES, YOUR HONOR. THERE IS GENERALLY A HEARING AFTER THE ORDER OF PROTECTION IS SERVED. BUT BY THEN, IF SOMEONE HAS ALSO BEEN SERVED AN ARREST WARRANT, THEN WHOEVER IS ARRESTED IS
GOING TO BE IN JAIL. No, that's my point, though, is that this is,
at this point, it's still contested.
The way I understand it, and I'm not a lawyer, is a judge has heard enough evidence that he believes there may be a need, but then a respondent appears in court, and can I say oftentimes that order
Speaker 201
56:55
is not continued? I think often, many times, the order is rescinded, not continued, whether that's a
Speaker 203
57:02
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, out of their ordinary systems, their ordinary course of doing business, of serving criminal arrest warrants, 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.
And I think that's creating problems for those criminal defendants. Questions, Senator Gilmore? And
I'll show you the same respect that Mr. Vandiver did,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
57:55
sir, in calling you your honor. So thank you. It happens a lot in here, no problem. He's very judicial. Well, I have a habit
Speaker 203
58:03
of 25 years of law practice, so I extend that courtesy to anyone.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
58:10
to go out 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 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 order of protection. So again, I mean, what would we say if there's an active warrant against the petitioner, then what? We don't need the order of protection?
We don't, there should be two order of protection served? I guess I'm just trying to figure out the relevance of you stating that. And
Speaker 203
59:02
maybe you can help me. Sure, I'll try to explain. 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 with both parties have criminal arrest warrants. And the petitioner's 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 we know from the statistics that orders of
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. Okay. Thank you. Other questions from committee? Hearing none, Mr. Vandiver, thank
you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair. No one signed up to speak for or against. Representative Moore, you are recognized
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:00:28
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 officer's 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. Second from Senator Tucker. Any discussion? Hearing
none, all for the motion. Signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carried. Congratulations, Representative. You have passed House Bill 1433. Thank you, committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Okay. Senator to present a Senate bill. You go to the top of the list. What bill, Senator Hester? Senate Bill 441. Senate Bill 441. Would you identify yourself
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:01:36
for 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 okay
questions from committee uh senator tucker has a question when he gets back to his seat is it
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:02:08
the same bill or has that been the exact same bill all
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:02:11
right thank you it it did have an amendment last time and if if it passes today it will be as amended okay
other questions from the committee hearing none uh don't there's no one to testify for against center history you're
Senator Bart Hester
Unverified
1:02:32
recognized closed for your bill or is i i'm closed i appreciate a good vote motion
to pass from senator gilmore second from senator johnson discussion center tucker i'll be
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:02:45
brief i don't want to rehash everything just the two quick points i understand what
senator hasher'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 who people who have been injured from seeking recovery for that injury so i think i'll be opposing from those two reasons thank you okay and let me uh say
that that was due pass as amended uh any other discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye
aye all opposed congratulations senator hester your bill has passed
roll call called for from center stubblefield
Speaker 224
1:03:43
what yes senator stubblefield no senator stubblefield no senator rice senator rice no senator johnson senator johnson yes senator tucker senator tucker no senator gilmore
Speaker 161
1:04:02
senator gilmore yes senator mckee senator mckee yes senator deez yes senator deez yes
chair votes okay bill passes by a vote of five to
three WE GOT ANYONE HERE TO
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:04:40
REPRESENT THE BILL NUMBER HOUSE BILL 1764
MR. CHAIR COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL 1764
representative would you identify yourself for the record
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:05:00
yes sir kendon underwood state representative district 16. representative
underwood you are recognized to present house bill 1764. thank you mr
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:05:10
chair and i appreciate the committee's time i
recognized when i was here earlier this week i took a simple bill and over complicated 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 so 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 had repeat convictions in our state. So it's just a clarification because we don't want to give a pass to individuals that are are coming from other states over individuals who are in Arkansas. - Questions from committee?
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:06:03
Senator Stubblefield. - Representative Underwood, you're basically saying that you can just accumulate these regardless of your location where if you committed them in another state, then they accumulate to Arkansas. - So,
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:06:19
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 under the section, under the code in Arkansas, and so therefore they're not used, they can't be used for enhancement, just the same as we would an Arkansas conviction. Does that make sense? Thank you for the question. Other questions from committee? Hearing
none, there's no one to testify for or against.
Representative Underwood, you are recognized to close for
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:07:10
your bill. I really appreciate the committee's time and hearing this again, and I'm close for
my bill. Motion to pass from Senator Gilmore. Second from Senator Johnson. Any discussion? hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye all opposed motion carried congratulations representative underwood you have passed your bill thank you committee appreciate you who have we got up next
Senator Scott, it's so good to see you and Senate Judiciary. Have you have
Speaker 87
1:07:51
you got a bill to run? Representative
is running a resolution and you're on the resolution or you're just here for moral support? They can't be both because the second one was just representative you are recognized what what are we hearing
Speaker 241
1:08:14
yes 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 would y'all recognize
yourself identify yourself for the record good morning committee and mr.
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:08:48
chair senator Scott district 12 good morning state representative Tara
Shepard, District 79. Okay. Representative, Senator, y'all, you are recognized, but first a word of
caution, Representative. You realize by putting Senator 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 the, you know, I'm not sure how the committee may react to that.
Speaker 244
1:09:24
Well, I'm hoping that that streak will continue to go. Okay, well, you are recognized to present House Concurrent Resolution 1010. Thank you
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:09:34
so much, Mr. Chair. And, gentlemen, I won't take up too much of your time this morning. During the 86th 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. But however, there's starting to be a rise in juvenile commitment for nonviolent offenses. And so I filed this so that we can one, 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,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:10:38
you were recognized for a question. - Thank you, I don't wanna 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 wanna
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 Braswell 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, trying to
Senator Jamie Scott
Unverified
1:11:10
make progress on juvenile efforts in Arkansas was good for her bill. And so I just wanted
Speaker 139
1:11:16
to add that. Thank you. Question, Senator Gilmore?
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:11:19
All right. Thank you. So I just, 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.
But I chair the Senate Interim Committee on Children and Youth, so I guess I'm trying to figure out what's expected as a
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:11:45
result of this. What do you envision happening here? So what, and great question, Senator, and thank you. What I envision happening is what happened prior, is the organizations coming together and identifying is there something that is driving juvenile incarceration rates, specifically as it relates 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 youth, they put those monies into the community. We don't have, which you probably are aware of, we do not have substance abuse beds for juveniles 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. Follow-up,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:13:33
Mr. Chair. Thank you. And so just to point out, I think Judge Brown in Pine Bluff has a very successful juvenile program that he's doing.
Great outcomes. I mean, I think a model for what should be probably 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 guess what I'm trying to ascertain with this is the expectation to the committee. Is this something that we will
just bring people in to testify and hear? I'm trying to get an idea of how much work is expected. What is expected, the legislative intent, if you
will, from both of you as the sponsors so that we have an idea from what the expectation for the committee is?
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:14:20
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. 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. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:14:50
Senator Ross, you're recognized. Thank you all for being here today. 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, sir. 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, and dollars only is not going
Speaker 258
1:15:40
to fix the problem. Would you agree with any of
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:15:44
that? Well, in 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 kids who do not necessarily need to be a maximum level, what are our alternatives? That's what this is addressing. Right now, it's said about $127,000 per year per youth annually. And so my goal is to try and see how can we save the state and taxpayers' dollars by not incarcerating youth that do not necessarily need that level of residential confinement in addition
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:16:31
to being able to better serve them in their communities and I you know I got to where they go 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, the system's overloaded, they don't want to put more in there than they have to, and I know what six decades ago 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 do right. We've got to teach kids do not push the envelope. You're going to be held responsible,
and there's consequences comes, and there are lifetimes of consequences if they go down the wrong road sometimes.
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:17:46
And I agree with you, Senator. I do. I totally agree with you 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 if we can utilize that. I
Speaker 257
1:18:14
agree with you on that. Thank you. Yes,
sir. Senator Tucker, you're recognized. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate all the discussion because we should we
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:18:24
should work on this and 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 stating as a as a state as a legislative body
that our goal is to take a good look at this and to study. We're not actually changing any juvenile JUSTICE LAWS ARE SAYING
WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. WE'RE JUST SAYING THIS IS SOMETHING WORTH LOOKING AT AND WE NEED TO STUDY IT.
Speaker 264
1:19:01
TODAY, RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU, REPRESENTATIVE. SENATOR JOHNSON? SENATOR GILMORE, WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING it is if you'll give me one for 30 days. I'll
Speaker 17
1:19:12
take it. Other questions from committee? Would
the committee remind me, so I don't have to ask the parliamentarian, what power
does a resolution have? Thank you for that description, Senator Johnson. I am correct that it has no legal authority, right? It's a purpose. Representative Senator, I like the resolution.
I like the title, and I like most of the ideas within. I have a problem with lines 30 and 31. The devil's always in the details. A study is required for the retention of independent expert consultants. I always cringe when we go to spend big money to have people come in here and tell us. 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 page two, lines five and six. 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 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 that to say, you don't get started till August. Twelve months from now puts us dead in the middle of fiscal session. 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. You know, the whole interim period is the more likely.
So again, I'm just, the wording's there, and we pass it or fail it.
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 Youth, probably, I think the only committee I have been on continuously since I've been here. 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 could be convinced, but every time we do that, we spend lots of money 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, I'm for. Other questions from the committee?
Wouldn't you agree, since I didn't, wouldn't you
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:23:24
agree that those present some problems? I do. I do. And 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. 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 Okay, I would rather That you fixed a couple 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. Okay, so Any other
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:24:16
questions from committee? Senator Clark, we are in 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... I'm just trying to read the committee.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:24:43
Senator Gilmore? Yeah, 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.
I can speak for myself. I want to be very careful about how we use our money and who we, you know, who would even do this work. I think we have a lot of folks in the state that are resident experts. I mentioned Judge Ernest Brown, who is, I think, tremendous in his work of what he's done with GBI and the program in Pine Bluff that has seen
real work or real outcomes. So with that, I'm in agreement with the chair. I'm not going to let perfect be in me the good.
So 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 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 uh because we want to hear we want to hear all sides uh of this uh so uh would you like any other questions would you like to close for your resolution i would just like to close by saying
Representative Tara Shephard
Unverified
1:25:58
thank you all for for hearing us today and i'm closed okay will
of the committee motion to pass to Gilmore second from Senator Johnson any discussion hearing none all for the motion signify by saying aye all opposed 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 okay okay House bill 1848
there are two amendment amendments and a handout can I have a copy of
Speaker 278
1:26:50
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
1:27:20
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS. I'M JUST SAYING. IT'S NOT FROM ME.
I DON'T KNOW WHO IT'S FROM. SENATOR TUCKER, HAVE YOU IDENTIFIED
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:27:31
YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD? CLARK TUCKER, SENATOR DISTRICT 14. SENATOR GILMORE.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:27:50
And not that I don't have confidence in the good counselor there, these amendments don't conflict in any way, do they, Senator? No, sir. Okay. Well, then I would make a motion to, do we need to adopt
them individually or do we need to, can we individually? Would Senator Tucker like to present the amendments? Sure.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:28:12
First amendment just deletes lines 31 through 33 on page two. So with that, I'll move to adopt Senate Amendment 1. second
we have a motion and a second to adopt the amendment any discussion all for the motion signify by saying
aye aye all against motion carried uh senate amendment one is adopted to house bill 1848 would you like to present the second amendment yes
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:28:45
thank you 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 one line 31 after merits it as 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
1:29:12
that and with that I'll move to adopt Senate amendment
two and appreciate a good vote motion to adopt second second from Senator Gilmore any discussion Hearing
none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed?
Congratulations, you have passed your amendment, perhaps with one vote. Thank you. Thank
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:29:33
you, members, and I appreciate your patience. I've been waiting just on the second amendment. That's
why I've held off this morning for that one, and BLR did great to get it to me when they did, which I'm grateful for. So what this, as y'all know, we passed a 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 second amendment clarifies, the same court that's conducting the custody proceeding, if they have a hearing on the merits 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 interest of the child for the child not to be placed in the sole custody or care of the person
who has engaged in the domestic abuse. The subdivision four on page two, line 19, is kind of the process for how a parent 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 understand, 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
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:31:25
you, Mr. Chair. On page two, up at the top there, the definition of domestic abuse, line two, 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
Speaker 138
1:31:58
lawyer, but that seems really subjective. So this definition actually is copied and pasted from another section of
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:32:04
Arkansas code. 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
Speaker 18
1:32:16
section of Arkansas code. so this 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 line number page
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:32:36
line number two up at the top the reason I bring this up Senator Tucker's 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.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:33:01
VANDERBERG JUST HELPED ME OUT HERE, WHICH I APPRECIATE. THE CODE SECTION IS 9-15-103 AND IT WAS ADOPTED IN 1991. OKAY, SO WHAT DID
Speaker 127
1:33:09
THAT SECTION OF CODE DEAL WITH? WELL, YOU'LL HAVE TO GIVE ME
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:33:15
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
Speaker 254
1:33:24
WAS. IT'S A GOOD THING WE HAVE A LAWYER ON THE COMMITTEE. IT IS
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:33:39
A GOOD THING. ONCE IN A WHILE THEY COME IN HANDY. I HEARD A PROPOSAL SEVERAL YEARS AGO THAT IF YOU SERVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF YEARS IN general assembly you should be granted a law license in the state of arkansas i think that's a really bad idea i think
Speaker 300
1:33:48
that could be a judge really bad idea you don't have to be a lawyer to
Speaker 137
1:33:56
be a judge that would really be a bad idea or a really
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:34:14
good idea you don't want to know my opinion a lot of things. So I'm 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 chapter of family law.
Speaker 138
1:34:28
So that's already in the definition of domestic abuse. Yes, sir.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:34:32
Is there a reason it's not in this section already? Well, we are
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:34:42
making new law with this because we're incorporating that notion into the custody setting 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 in a code that if you've been found guilty, I use that word guilty, 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 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
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:35:49
child. So, obviously, I want to protect the kids and make sure they're not putting homes with abusive people. That just seems like really subjective language to me. And in a custody case specifically, I wonder if there was a reason why that wasn't included originally.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:36:07
I just don't think it was contemplated. So, you know, I'm not a, I've handled a couple of divorces in my career, okay? But I'm not a, this is not my area of specialty in the practice of law, okay? 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.
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 their sole
interest, they're the ones who kind of flesh this out. Who? Excuse me, Senator McGee. Who fleshed
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. There may be a conflict of interest at times between the best interest of their client and the best interest 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 uh center tucker uh who is uh behind the addition of all this
language uh representative hudson so far as i know no there's somebody back behind that? I don't know. Well, if it's just Representative Hudson, she's not a judge or an
attorney, is she? I may have misunderstood your question. Who's behind all the additional
language here in House Bill 1848? I
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:38:33
don't know. This is Representative Hudson's bill. If someone approached? Yeah, if you don't
know, that's fine. Yeah. Because the joint custody law is fairly new
and was passed because there was not only a feeling, it was factual that 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, but the ones that are like that are retiring. So, of course, both couldn't be true.
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.
You have any idea why I wouldn't have
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:40:08
seen it before? No, sir. So, a couple of things. To your 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. The last 24 to 36 hours have kind of run together. So, I can't say 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 I did not do that. But my involvement.
I'm not pointing fingers at you, but you understand my point. I do. I do. And 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. 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 personally, I'm sure there, 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 with an 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 really narrow exemption that if the judge who's conducting the, who would be making that determination anyway 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
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:42:20
we have any judges to testify 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
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:42:32
that may be the case i don't
know the answer to that the uh because that's very important and this had it had this been present 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. 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 that because one gender was no longer 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 to present the evidence of abuse.
Right. And often, as you, as has been mentioned before, these things get
heated, people, it's all kinds of things. And I deal with this more in DCFS than I do, I really don't deal with custody cases at all, but in DCFS, I deal with it because it bleeds over, because all of a sudden,
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 law finds one parent at least negligent if they allowed sexual
abuse of their children and didn't do anything about it.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:45:04
Senator, I think 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 to 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, I've had enough, I'm not putting up with this anymore, then 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, 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 some attorneys actually coach it. What is the penalty for those who claim it and it didn't happen? It would be the same
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:46:26
penalty for any other type of litigation proceeding. There's, first of all, any time 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 court. 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 are either of those things happening?
It's rare. I'll grant you that. Other questions? Senator Dease. Thank you,
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:47:24
Mr. Chair. Senator Tucker, you had mentioned some of this earlier. I received a letter from a lawyer that primarily practices in family law,
and they may or may not have testified in the House side, but they sent me some notes that I would love your thoughts on through this as well. And it was 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 the best interest of the child to be in custody or care. And then finally... Can we just
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:48:02
take those one at a time? Sure. I'm not sure I'm going to
Senator Tyler Dees
Unverified
1:48:06
remember all of them. Okay. Let me go to this one because this is the one I had the most concern. Okay. It was, in their experience, they described that 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 create it where, by just allegation alone, that there could be a decision made without proof of evidence of abuse. the difference between abuse and violence and so and i think control i'm going to get what's the what's terminology control a 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 it very clear and I'm really
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:49:11
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
Another 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 allegation, 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, yes. And Senator Clark can and should correct me if I've misstated that. But this has established a proceeding where you have to establish proof in front of a court 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 proof, right 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 your judge's satisfaction, then the burden of proof shifts to the person who the court has found with evidence has abused the children. Thank you for that.
Other questions from the committee? have brian
Speaker 203
1:51:31
vandiver to testify against thank you mr chair brian vandiver on behalf of arkansas advocates for parental equality and i want to start by by saying that that this absolutely has
everything to do with act 604 and the rebuttable presumption of joint custody that Senator Clark, Representative Gasway, and others worked so very hard to pass four years ago. 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 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 four years ago and she admitted in discussions that yes that that act has actually worked and she sees that now and so and I would also say that Judge Amy Johnson Moore, Pulaski County Circuit Judge, who helped work on this bill, also has said openly that Act 604 is a good act and is working well in family court. What this bill does and our
concerns with it are a couple. 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 interest but the other exception another exception is if one of the presumptions that was already in the code applies and there were two one 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 a lot of the amendments were made that we suggested and we appreciate the good work that she did on that 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 section 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 in domestic abuse situations. And under that code section, originally it was limited to physical and sexual abuse. What we'll see in another bill
that there are some who want to expand that definition of abuse. And what we had an objection to was that copy 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 there's always been a question of, is that something different than domestic abuse? And we would say that, yes, what this does, it expands that definition from domestic violence to domestic abuse. And creates more opportunities for this exception to apply than would have existed before this bill.
In other words, 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 Against Domestic Violence. 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 promoted by the Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence, with which Judge Amy Moore has worked, and she and I, again, work together on making this better. But as I said, there's still problems with that definition. Let me go to a second 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 the bill, and it's on page two. Let me get my lines of, there it is. So 1848, page two, if you look at line nine 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. 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 uh something else but that's a problem that we noted with 1434
it was corrected in the house side and now with this new bill it has reappeared so that's that's another problem that that we see we just had the opportunity to digest the amendments from this morning and that cures one of another problem that we had with the regard to the domestic intervention program that's now been deleted from this bill so we're happy with that amendment but i would just end with we worked very hard four 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. And I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Questions from committee. Hearing none, thank you for your testimony. We have one more signed up to testify. Gina Indelicato to testify against. Good morning, Chair. My comments were going to be
Speaker 316
1:59:41
about the— Would you identify yourself for the record, please? I'm sorry. My name is Gina Indelicato, 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. There is no one else to testify for or against. Senator
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:00:14
Tucker, you are recognized close for the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I always appreciate the engagement
and participation of Mr. Vandiver and everyone in the process.
The process is better when there are 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. Vandiver 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. it 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 Mr. 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 in the code. And I think this help clarifies what qualifies as domestic abuse for a judge to consider in a custody proceeding. So, when it boils down to it, for your vote on this
bill, the question for you is, if the judge in 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 alone with their kid? I believe the answer to that is yes. That is in the best interest of the children. I'm comfortable saying that across the board in every case. And so 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
A bill has amended. A motion from Senator Tucker, a second
from Senator Dees. I'm sorry, Gilmore. Senator Dees would have had a hard time making that second,
wouldn't he? The 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 uh that can be made
When that isn't the way it happens, you have to be suspicious, not only of motives, but of the words.
And the, 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.
And I would appreciate the committee voting no. Other discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion
signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Senator 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 is not my intention if we come back this afternoon to hear anything controversial, but don't anybody think that we won't and therefore not be here. 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, we are recessed on the call of the chair.
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
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Jacqueline Mcewan
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
Speaker 148
Representative Stephen Meeks
Unverified
Speaker 154
Chair
Unverified
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Speaker 162
Speaker 167
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 17
Speaker 278
Speaker 29
Speaker 138
Speaker 18
Speaker 254
Speaker 300
Speaker 137
Speaker 316