Judiciary Committee- House
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (62)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1978
· 6 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “recognized to go to the end of the table, present House Bill 1978.”
|
TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIP TO THE SEVENTEENTH DISTRICT OF THE STATE DISTRICT COURT SYSTEM. | Gazaway | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1057
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…HE LAW CONCERNING COST SHARING FOR DISTRICT COURT EXPENSES. HB1057 R. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREAR…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY CERTAIN PERSONS; AND TO PERMIT … | R. Scott Richardson | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1178
Act 993
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…COMMITTED CRIMES WHEN THEY WERE UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN. HB1178 R. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A M…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY; TO AMEND THE LAW … | R. Scott Richardson | Notification that HB1178 is now Act 993 |
|
HB1033
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NSTITUTION EMPLOYEE. DEFERRED BILLS Number Sponsor Subtitle HB1033 McCullough TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CR…”
|
TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER … | McCullough | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1136
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…RIOUS Richardson MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS. HB1136 Achor TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING AC…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PROHIBIT A COURT … | Achor | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1141
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND WARRANT. Page 3 of 5 HB1141 R. Scott TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE A…”
|
TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE AND INJURIOUS MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION … | R. Scott Richardson | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1306
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1306 Furman CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLAC…”
|
CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP; AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL … | Furman | WITHDRAWN BY AUTHOR |
|
HB1430
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ON WHEN A PERSON IS SUBJECT TO AN ACTIVE WARRANT OF ARREST. HB1430 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991. | K. Moore | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1431
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991. HB1431 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; AND TO PROHIBIT THE … | K. Moore | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1473
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. HB1473 Pilkington TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS. | Pilkington | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1481
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1481 Long TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHI…”
|
TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROVISION OF MATERIAL AID AND … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1535
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1535 Duffield TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVIC…”
|
TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF RAPE OF A CHILD TWELVE YEARS … | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1553
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1553 Ray TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBU…”
|
TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. | Ray | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1655
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…TION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS. HB1655 Long TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; TO CREATE TH…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL … | Long | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1663
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES. HB1663 K. Brown TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMO…”
|
TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMONY FOR A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN … | K. Brown | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1664
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1664 K. Brown TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS…”
|
TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS AND OTHER TESTING IN AN INVESTIGATION INVOLVING ALLEGED … | K. Brown | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1676
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1676 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE STATE OR A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE; … | Womack | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1678
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…DER OF PROTECTION AVAILABLE TO A VICTIM OF VIDEO VOYEURISM. HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INC…”
|
TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE … | Long | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1754
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1754 Gonzales TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY … | Gonzales | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1765
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1765 Underwood TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN THE THIRD DEGREE; AND TO AMEND THE … | Underwood | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1823
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND. HB1823 Duffield TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AN…”
|
TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AND NONCONSENSUAL EDITS ACT OF 2025; AND TO … | Duffield | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1885
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1885 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW EN…”
|
CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER INVOLVED IN A DEADLY USE … | Barnett | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1947
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…WHEN THE VICTIM WOULD BE THE PAYOR OF ALIMONY. Page 4 of 5 HB1947 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSI…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA. | Clowney | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1948
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NCIDENT TO BE PLACED ON TEMPORARY LEAVE AND ATTEND THERAPY. HB1948 Joey Carr TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE OFFENSE O…”
|
TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE OFFENSE OF NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS COMMITTED; AND TO … | Joey Carr | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1953
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1953 Torres TO PROVIDE FOR A SURCHARGE TO BE ASSESSED ON INMATE…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR A SURCHARGE TO BE ASSESSED ON INMATE PHONE CALLS TO OFFSET THE … | Torres | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB277
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…FICIENCIES AND QUALITY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES. SB277 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALIN…”
|
TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PERMIT THE FILING … | J. Bryant | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB302
Act 659
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…Howard M. Beaty, Jr. REGULAR AGENDA Number Sponsor Subtitle SB302 Gilmore TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD;…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. | Gilmore | Notification that SB302 is now Act 659 |
|
SB314
Act 661
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB314 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEXUAL SOLICITATION; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEXUAL SOLICITATION; AND TO AMEND THE PENALTIES FOR THE OFFENSE … | Irvin | Notification that SB314 is now Act 661 |
|
SB321
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB321 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRAT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND. | J. Bryant | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB325
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB325 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AM…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AMEND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO … | A. Clark | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB326
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE LAW REGARDING THE CHILD MALTREATMENT CENTRAL REGISTRY. SB326 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 AND TH…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 AND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO MODIFY … | A. Clark | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB342
Act 749
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ARKANSAS CODE WHICH RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 3 OF 1936. SB342 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES. | A. Clark | Notification that SB342 is now Act 749 |
|
SB355
Act 1000
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT. SB355 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVE…”
|
TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS. | J. Bryant | Notification that SB355 is now Act 1000 |
|
SB364
Act 750
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…O DEFINE "HEALTHCARE WORKER" REGARDING ASSAULT AND BATTERY. SB364 Hester TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES RELATED TO CONTRACTORS. | Hester | Notification that SB364 is now Act 750 |
|
SB375
Act 662
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AMEND THE PENALTIES FOR THE OFFENSE OF SEXUAL SOLICITATION. SB375 Stone TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CAPITAL RAPE; AND TO AMEND A…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CAPITAL RAPE; AND TO AMEND A PORTION OF ARKANSAS CODE … | Stone | Notification that SB375 is now Act 662 |
|
SB426
Act 654
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE SEVENTEENTH DISTRICT OF THE STATE DISTRICT COURT SYSTEM. SB426 Hester TO CREATE THE DEFENSE AGAINST CRIMINAL ILLEGALS ACT;…”
|
TO CREATE THE DEFENSE AGAINST CRIMINAL ILLEGALS ACT; AND TO ESTABLISH ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR ILLEGAL … | Hester | Notification that SB426 is now Act 654 |
|
SB427
Act 663
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EGAL ALIENS WHO COMMIT SERIOUS FELONIES INVOLVING VIOLENCE. SB427 J. Bryant TO AMEND PROMOTING PROSTITUTION OFFENSES; TO ENHA…”
|
TO AMEND PROMOTING PROSTITUTION OFFENSES; TO ENHANCE THE PENALTIES FOR PROMOTING PROSTITUTION IN THE FIRST, … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB427 is now Act 663 |
|
SB428
Act 664
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CREATE THE OFFENSE OF PROMOTING PROSTITUTION AT A BUSINESS. SB428 J. Bryant CONCERNING A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VICTIMS OF…”
|
CONCERNING A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO PROVIDE A … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB428 is now Act 664 |
|
SB429
Act 665
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB429 J. Bryant TO EXPAND THE SEALING OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR VIC…”
|
TO EXPAND THE SEALING OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO PROVIDE THAT … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB429 is now Act 665 |
|
SB430
Act 666
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB430 J. Bryant AN ACT TO REQUIRE MANDATORY RESTITUTION TO BE AWA…”
|
AN ACT TO REQUIRE MANDATORY RESTITUTION TO BE AWARDED TO A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB430 is now Act 666 |
|
SB435
Act 753
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES. SB435 Irvin TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT UPON A HEALTHCARE WORKER; AND TO DEFINE … | Irvin | Notification that SB435 is now Act 753 |
|
SB442
Act 667
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…T CERTAIN SEXUALLY EXPLICIT PRODUCTS THAT RESEMBLE A CHILD. SB442 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO PROVIDE FOR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS USED TO … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB442 is now Act 667 |
|
SB449
Act 669
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…REATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING AN ENDANGERED RUNAWAY CHILD. SB449 Dees TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR CONFISCATION OF ALTERNAT…”
|
TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR CONFISCATION OF ALTERNATIVE NICOTINE PRODUCTS, VAPOR PRODUCTS, E-LIQUID PRODUCTS, TOBACCO … | Dees | Notification that SB449 is now Act 669 |
|
SB457
Act 1001
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…T OF PROPERTY AFTER TEN YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE THEFT. SB457 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELEASE FROM PARO…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELEASE FROM PAROLE OR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION OF CERTAIN PERSONS … | G. Leding | Notification that SB457 is now Act 1001 |
|
SB459
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ND TO AMEND PROCEDURES AROUND REPORTING CHILD MALTREATMENT. SB459 G. Leding TO AMEND THE MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE…”
|
TO AMEND THE MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT. | G. Leding | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB485
Act 670
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB485 C. Tucker TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCER…”
|
TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENDED IMPOSITION OF A SENTENCE, … | C. Tucker | Notification that SB485 is now Act 670 |
|
SB487
Act 754
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB487 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW ON THE DESTRUCTION OR EXPUNGEMENT OF…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW ON THE DESTRUCTION OR EXPUNGEMENT OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY RECORDS. | Irvin | Notification that SB487 is now Act 754 |
|
SB488
Act 755
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SENTENCE, PROBATION, PAROLE, AND POST- RELEASE SUPERVISION. SB488 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSID…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSIDERED TO BE ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT. | Irvin | Notification that SB488 is now Act 755 |
|
SB490
Act 972
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB490 Irvin TO ALLOW A COURT TO WAIVE CERTAIN FEES WHEN A JUVENIL…”
|
TO ALLOW A COURT TO WAIVE CERTAIN FEES WHEN A JUVENILE IS ORDERED TO REGISTER … | Irvin | Notification that SB490 is now Act 972 |
|
SB511
Act 757
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…CO PRODUCTS, AND CIGARETTE PAPERS FROM A MINOR AT A SCHOOL. SB511 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AUTOMATED TELL…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE IMPAIRMENT. | B. Johnson | Notification that SB511 is now Act 757 |
|
SB512
Act 758
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE IMPAIRMENT. SB512 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ROBBERY AND AGGRAVAT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ROBBERY AND AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. | B. Johnson | Notification that SB512 is now Act 758 |
|
SB513
Act 759
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LAW CONCERNING ROBBERY AND AGGRAVATED ROBBERY. Page 2 of 5 SB513 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF MAIL THEFT; AN…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF MAIL THEFT; AND TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF … | B. Johnson | Notification that SB513 is now Act 759 |
|
SB514
Act 760
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OF A MAIL RECEPTACLE KEY OR LOCK. SB514 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL POSSESS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A SKIMMER; AND TO INCREASE PENALTIES … | B. Johnson | Notification that SB514 is now Act 760 |
|
SB537
Act 763
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A SKIMMER FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS. SB537 Gilmore TO CREATE THE EARNING SAFE REENTRY THROUGH WORK ACT…”
|
TO CREATE THE EARNING SAFE REENTRY THROUGH WORK ACT; AND TO CREATE A SENTENCE CREDIT … | Gilmore | Notification that SB537 is now Act 763 |
|
SB539
Act 723
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ME CREDITS THROUGH EMPLOYMENT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB539 Gilmore TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE LAW R…”
|
TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE LAW REGARDING THE DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION … | Gilmore | Notification that SB539 is now Act 723 |
|
SB555
Act 765
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB555 J. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF VIDEO V…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF VIDEO VOYEURISM; TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF … | J. Scott | Notification that SB555 is now Act 765 |
|
SB575
Act 989
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB575 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSTALLMENT FEES COLL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSTALLMENT FEES COLLECTED IN CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS; TO AMEND … | C. Tucker | Notification that SB575 is now Act 989 |
|
SB590
Act 769
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB590 Gilmore TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN TH…”
|
TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN … | Gilmore | Notification that SB590 is now Act 769 |
|
SB597
Act 770
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. SB597 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THREAT OF HARM…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THREAT OF HARM UPON A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EMPLOYEE. | B. Johnson | Notification that SB597 is now Act 770 |
|
HB1871
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1871 Gazaway TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS…”
|
TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS WHO REPEATEDLY VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THEIR … | Gazaway | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB313
Act 733
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB313 Irvin CONCERNING FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND TRE…”
|
CONCERNING FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND TREATMENT; AND TO PROMOTE AND IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES AND QUALITY … | Irvin | Notification that SB313 is now Act 733 |
|
SB431
Act 987
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB431 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; TO EL…”
|
TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; TO ELIMINATE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR … | J. Bryant | Notification that SB431 is now Act 987 |
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 7, 2026
First bill up is going to be with Representative Richardson. Representative Richardson, you are recognized to present House Bill 1178. House Bill 1178, members. If you'll identify
yourself, you'll be recognized to present
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
0:21
your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Scott Richardson, House District 13. Members, you've heard this bill before, and I won't belabor the long story on it.
This one is a constituent-led bill. The chief complaint during our last session was that there were concerns that this could create a condition where prosecutors might pick and choose which was more monetarily beneficial to prosecute. So in order to address that, we amended the bill, and if you look on page 2 of the bill, line 4 through 12, we took out that language and we just said a city of the second class or an incorporated town that chooses not to have an office or city attorney make contract with an attorney for legal representation.
This gets us back to just status quo. They can hire an attorney to prosecute their needs and move forward. And with that, I'm happy to try to address any questions or concerns. Members, are there any questions? Seeing no
questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Richardson, you're recognized to close
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
1:38
for your bill. Thank you, committee. I appreciate you letting me get this amended and bring it back.
And I would appreciate a good vote and make a motion to pass. Members, we have
a motion to do baths on the table. Is
there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed, say
no. The ayes have it. You've passed your bill. Members, let's take up House Bill 1057. House Bill 1057, Representative Richardson, for the record,
if you'll just go ahead and identify yourself again, and then you may proceed.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
2:15
Thank you, Madam Chair. House Bill Scott Richardson, District 13. Sorry, let me pull up my notes on this one because there were quite a few more questions on it, and I want to make sure that I go through each one committee. Again, this is a bill that you heard previously. There were a number of concerns around the bill. I went back to try to address as many of them as possible and still accomplish the mission associated with the bill.
If you, we had concerns around what happens if a convicted felony in another state, if they're convicted of a felony in another state. We looked at line
518, sorry I'm trying to read my notes and go through that, line, excuse me, page 5, line 18.
We addressed that concern by making it available in the NCIC. We had another question, concerns around officer had conflicting information. If they were out and made a stop, what if the ACIC said one thing and the NCIC said another thing, how are they going to address that? We addressed that by adding the responsibility for the ACIC to update NCIC associated with that restoration of rights.
Again, on page 5, down around line 29. So those were
the two primary questions and concerns that were presented. I know there were a number of groups, our Prosecutors Association, the Sheriff's Association, and the state police that still express some concerns with this bill. I don't think they've changed their position necessarily a lot. I will speak to the biggest concern that came out of that.
There was made mention during testimony that they've seen, and I would agree, that they've seen situations go south once an individual has been stopped at a light. I would suggest, though, that that's the risk with any individual who has a violent tendency. However, these individuals that we're addressing are nonviolent criminals. They have not demonstrated a violent tendency. And so the risk associated with those individuals should be roughly the same as an individual who hasn't been convicted of a prior serious crime.
So that's my perspective at this point, and I'm happy to try to approach
Members, any questions? Seeing no questions, we do have someone signed up to speak for
the bill, Michael Chamblee. Sorry, Michael Chamblee. First off, I'd like
Speaker 21
5:28
to tell you I appreciate y'all hearing this.
Don't forgive me if I get a little emotional, but I've been looking at this for 40 years. 40 years ago, I got into an incident where it made me a fellow. But I love to hunt fish, and I've been trying through presidential pardons and other issues, other ways, governors, to try to get this resolved. I noticed, like Mr. Richardson, this thing has questions to it. There are people out there that even though if they were fortunate enough to be able to have their rights reinstated, they may still make another mistake.
I think that's just part of what we deal with today. Me and myself, I got fortunate enough to go, which surprised me. I went to Iraq,
Speaker 23
6:18
Afghanistan, and Kuwait. I stayed there for six years. I tried to assist the soldier, to keep the soldier alive because, as we said, they go out at night and they
Speaker 21
6:34
protected us. They kept us safe. I never worried once while I was overseas for my safety ever.
I tell some people in this country that it's kind of ironic that I felt safer over there than I do here, you know. I tell other folks that back in the old days, a person had some dignity about them, if you will, whatever you want to call it, that if they had a beef with you, they'd invite you out in the street. Nowadays, they'd just drive by and shoot at everybody, which is wrong. I feel sorry for the children in the schools, but I do also believe that seeing how the Supreme Court, whenever they came down with their ruling or the Bruins situation,
it has already made a lot of these laws unconstitutional. In my opinion, they're unconstitutional anyway. But it made them unconstitutional, and they're challenging a lot of them now, and they're winning a lot of them now. I do believe that the Constitution, as it says, as I have studied, checked into, that it's supposed to be the supreme law of the land. It's supposed to trump all of the laws. It's supposed to trump state, federal, all laws.
That Constitution gives me my right, as the Bruin decision did, As the Supreme Court ruled, me still being a citizen, and even though I've got a felony, I'm still part of the public. I'm still a citizen of the United States. I still have the right to self-protection. I still have the right in a couple of weeks, I think at least, to go out and try to shoot a damn turkey. Doesn't mean that that might be right or wrong about what I want to do because I know I paid my dues the way they wanted me to,
But it just seems like now that it's kind of a double jeopardy thing on me. Or I guess I should say all of us, because I'm not really speaking for just me, you know. I'm speaking for all of us. I am saying that, like I said a while ago, there is an opportunity out there that if you people or anybody for that matter give us the opportunity to try to prove ourselves to you once more, that we have changed, it doesn't mean that they may not do something different. I know human nature that well to know that's possible.
And in reality, I'm really not a betting person, but I would bet it's going to happen. You know, I do. But at the same time, if you don't ever give us the damn chance, how are you ever going to really know? How are you going to know that I'm going to stay on the same line that I've been on now for the last 40 years, you know? How are you going to know that I'm not going to be the one, Like that poor lady was down at Albeck
Speaker 23
9:17
Steakhouse in Texarkana. Whenever she walked in the door, she was pregnant, and that man killed her.
How are you going to know that I might not be the one there that might be able to stop something like that? We don't
Speaker 21
9:31
know until we try. If we don't try, we will never know. That's why I come up here. Like I said, 40 years, people, I've been looking at this. I'm going to keep looking at it. Even if you deny it today, I understand that you're right to do so. I'm only grateful that at least now, after all of that time, I have got to sit here in front of a bunch of people like you
that are trying to do the right and the better thing and at least state my case, so to speak, you know, have my say, so to speak, you know. I'm not trying to convince you to do it. I'm just trying to plant a little seed in your mind without thinking about it and seeing if you can't come up with something. Even if this one's not the right one, please try to come up with a different
one. Thank you, Mr. Shandley, for your testimony today.
Thank you, ma'am. Members, we have a couple of people who have signed up against the bill. Gary Sipes. Mr. Sipes, Chief, if you'll go to
the end of the table, you'll be recognized. Just identify yourself,
Speaker 33
10:43
and you may make your statement. Thank you, ma'am. I'm Gary Sybs, director of the Arkansas Association of Chiefs of Police. Our stance is still the same as it was the last time the bill was brought up. I appreciate the gentleman here fighting for our country.
You have police officers that are out on the streets every day doing the same thing. They're facing these guns every day. I'm sure this gentleman is a good person, and he's not the one that we're worried about. It's the other ones that we have to worry about, and there's a whole lot more that we have to worry about than this gentleman. It's a shame that we have to do this, but it's just we have a process in place now,
and the chiefs would like to see us continue the way we're
going now. Any questions for Chief Sipes? Seeing no questions, thank you for your testimony today. We have one other individual signed up to speak against
the bill. Lieutenant Colonel Aaron. Jason Aaron, Lieutenant Colonel with the Arkansas State Police.
Speaker 37
12:00
The Arkansas State Police opposes this bill as well for the same reasons as Chief Sopps. There's already a process in place. It's through the executive branch of government to seek that pardon, to take that power away from that and move to the judicial branch. We're taking that power away from the executive branch where it's already a process is in place. Part of a deterrent of being a convicted felon is losing those gun rights, and that's part of a consequence of committing a felony,
And there's a process in place already that exists. They can seek to get those gun rights back. But just the state police opposes this bill as well.
Thank you. Are there any questions? Seeing no questions, thank you, Lieutenant Colonel, for being here today. Members, that's all of the audience we have signed up to speak for against the bill. Representative Richardson, you're
recognized to close for your... Oh, wait. I'm sorry. I thought the prosecutors had signed
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
12:54
up to testify against this morning. Are you signed up this morning?
We'll let you come to the end table. No, you've got to sign up again, but we'll let you speak. You were here this morning, signed up for it, and we do have that. So if you'll go ahead and go to the end of the table,
you'll be recognized. If you'll identify yourself, then you may present your testimony.
Daniel Shue
Unverified
13:36
Madam Chair, my name is Daniel Hsu. I am the elected prosecuting attorney for Sebastian County, 12th Judicial District, and I am the president of the Arkansas
Speaker 49
13:49
Prosecuting Attorneys Association. Chris Walton, Saline
Speaker 45
13:55
County Prosecutor. Thank you. You're recognized, gentlemen. Thank you. First of all,
Daniel Shue
Unverified
14:01
as the testimony I've heard so far, Arkansas Constitution, Article 6, Section 18, gives the power to pardon to the governor.
In 1995, with the agreement of the governor, Jim Guy Tucker, the legislature passed a special procedure for restoration of firearm rights outside of a pardon. And you can go online to the ACIC website, and it has the instructions on how to fill in the form. The form is eight pages. It's fill in the blank. And then you have the ninth page is a choice to ask for a pardon or restoration of firearm rights.
In this particular bill, our issue, we have several, but for me, it's on page five, dealing with filing the uniform petition. You're all probably familiar with the petitions to seal. Well, the petitions to seal have to be verified just to seal a felony. And here you're having a felony removed, and the petition doesn't have to be verified. By that, you're placed under oath, and you solemnly swear that this is true.
And the reason I say that, oftentimes I do all the responses for the judges on petitions to seal. It's my responsibility to make sure that they have paid all their fines, they've paid all their court costs, they've paid their restitution, and they haven't committed any new felonies or any other information that the court may require. This procedure bypasses that. The prosecutor is not notified.
I never know. And those of you that are lawyers know that a judge can't do this. A judge can't go research the issue and decide the case. They have to listen to the case and then decide. In addition, it says it's in the circuit court of the county in which he or she resides. So a case that is adjudicated in Sebastian County may be decided by a judge in South Arkansas
who knows nothing of those facts. So how is the judge going to learn those facts? And I guess that, Chris, you may have some comments yourself, but that's kind of my criticism of this. Is the principle okay? Yeah, the principle's okay. There are some felonies that after a certain amount of time, you might need your firearm rights restored, but there's a process that you passed in 95 outside of a pardon for someone
to do this. So that's my critique. You recognize Chris?
Speaker 53
17:09
Thank you. The one concern I have, whenever you have a giant list like this, you are always going to miss certain offenses. DWI felony that's that's not listed here child endangerment that's not listed so those are offenses that would fall under or fall differently than what I think that you intend to do because you're trying to get rid of serious offenses meaning that they wouldn't have the same process
but you're missing it you're missing a few and anytime you get into a list you just do that The second thing I would say is, to kind of echo Mr. Hsu's point, a judge is going to get this, but there's not someone actually screening and looking at it. A good example of something that I would be concerned about, and this is something I actually do with pardon applications. Run that person. See if they've committed any additional offenses. They might not have committed
another felony, but if you have somebody that has committed three domestic batteries or a number of assaults or other misdemeanor crimes, do you want that person automatically getting their gun rights back? And that is a concern I have. This is a shall statute. The judge shall expunge or seal and if a person has been committing crimes just not to a felony level
during that occasion a judge will that will end up they will have their firearm
Speaker 55
18:44
rights restored and I don't know that society wants that
that would be my comment. Representative Crawford You're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Prosecutor
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
18:59
Hsu, we were so close two years ago with Representative Flowers. She ran a bill like this. We got it on the House floor.
It almost passed. What's the difference? Do you remember why is this one so much different? If
Daniel Shue
Unverified
19:21
and sometimes things go in one side of this bad haircut and out the other. I do not recall what the issues might have been. Follow-up? I think theoretically something could be drafted, but my issues with this one is the due process. People sometimes forget that the state has some due process rights,
and there's not a way to litigate this with what's in this bill. a way for the judge to go, okay, here's my standard. Is it preponderance of the evidence? Is it clear and convincing evidence? What do I have to decide? And how does this evidence get before me? And you're maybe putting it in front of a judge who never heard the case because you're filing it in Pulaski County and the conviction was in Crittenden County.
Speaker 58
20:13
That's my issues with the procedure, not with the theoretical concept. Follow up. You'll
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
20:18
recognize me. So do you believe that we could work together in interim and we could craft a bill where people can get their gun rights back? I think so. We'd have to get with law enforcement and
Daniel Shue
Unverified
20:34
get everybody at the table and probably come up with it. You did it in 95. Well, I didn't, but.
You weren't born yet, right? Representative Gonzalez,
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
20:51
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Crawford took one of mine. But I heard you say that this is a shall bill, and you're partly correct, but it's shall grant or deny. So it's not automatically getting
Speaker 53
21:08
your gun rights back, right? What would be the basis if the prosecution, if the state doesn't understand that it's coming forward,
because we haven't been notified of this, who is going to put up the objections? That's the practical aspect of it, only from my limited perspective. Okay, thank you.
Representative Unger, you're recognized for a question.
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
21:33
Thank you, Madam Chair. Gentlemen, just because I'm curious, the restoration of gun rights action that is possible, which you mentioned, could you give me a ballpark figure of how often that is actually used in a year?
Speaker 68
21:50
I wish I could. That would be something that
Daniel Shue
Unverified
21:53
the governor's office would keep those. When I was in private practice for six years, I did three or four of those, and I know I did at least two pardons. And I did them pro bono publico. I did them because it was the right thing to do for those people. I mean, one of them was like a, it was a burglary conviction from like 1957, and he reached in the window and took a purse. I remember that.
Thank you. Members, any other questions? We have no one else signed up to speak for you against the bill. Thank you, gentlemen, for being
here at the end of the table and taking questions. Thank you
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
22:44
for allowing us to testify. You bet. Representative Richardson, you're recognized to close for your bill. Well, let's start pretty simple. I appreciate the testimony from law enforcement and from our prosecutors. I don't necessarily have the same perspective that they do.
My perspective is significantly different. This is a bill that keeps coming around because it is the right thing to do. We asked very specifically when we started this process, what are the crimes that you believe constitute a person actually losing their gun rights in the first place? That these are violent crimes or potential violent crimes. From that, we added those to the list that were recommended. Happy to do that. We were able to come up with a comprehensive list. And then in addition to the list, we also added any violent crimes that happen to be listed currently in statute under the violent crime statute.
So anything that gets added in the future automatically disqualifies for this. This is the right approach. This is the best way that we can restore these rights to these individuals. I appreciate that there is always going to be concern that when a police officer comes to a door at a house or comes to a car door, they're always going to have a risk associated with this. These are individuals who have never demonstrated that risk. So why would we consider them any different than anyone else?
These are nonviolent, mostly financial-type crimes. These are not crimes that people have done that create a violent tendency or demonstrate a violent tendency. And therefore, their tendency to react would normally be the same as anyone else's. Is there the potential for violence? I think there's the potential for violence as much so for anyone who has not been convicted of a violent crime and just happens to be their first attempt.
Beyond that, I understand that there is governor pardon capabilities. That is not addressed in this bill. The governor still has full capabilities within this bill to do pardons. That's not changed. In addition to that, 1995, there was a clemency requirement or clemency piece that was added for eight years that the governor could grant clemency for these individuals. We know that there are 19 other states that already allow for either a non-governor intervention and restoration of gun rights,
or they never lose their gun rights. That's because it's the right approach. These are non-violent individuals. I'm sorry I can't remember the witness's name, but that's just one example of probably 150 emails that I've received from individuals all across our state that have these same problems. They cannot get through the process. They cannot get taken care of through the standard mechanism. Nonviolent people deserve to have their gun rights back, and with that, I will be closed, make a motion due pass, and would appreciate a good vote.
Members, we have a motion due pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. No. The no's have it. The bill has failed. Members, we're turning next
to House Bill 1978, representing Gassaway. You're recognized. Go to the end of the table. Present House Bill 1978.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
26:26
Go ahead and identify yourself. We're ready. Thank you, Madam
Chair. State Representative Jimmy Yazaway, District 31. Members, today I have before you House Bill 1978, which proposes to create a new district court judge position for District 17, which is Green and Clay County.
This is where my legislative district is, also Representative Wooldridge, Representative Kavanaugh has a small portion that this district court serves, and also Senator Johnson has the entirety of this district. We currently have one district court judge position that is serving two counties, And I'll just kind of tell you, for many years, decades, I suppose now, we had one full-time district court judge that served only Greene County.
And Clay County, which has the cities of Piggott and Corning, Clay County is one of those unique counties that has a dual county seat. Clay County had a part-time district court judge. So what we had for many decades is a full-time district court judge in Greene County and a part-time district court judge in Clay County. Recently, or fairly recently, when there was some consolidations of judicial districts and reworking, redistricting, if you will,
They eliminated the Clay County part-time district court judgeship and the Green County. They've combined those two into one district, and the Green County district court judge, of course, ran for that new position. And so now he is doing what I believe is the equivalent of a full-time job plus at least a part-time job. I can tell you that the city of Perigold, we're very proud of this, is a growing community, one of the probably few growing communities in eastern Arkansas. I think it's the crown jewel of eastern Arkansas, if you ask me.
But it's a growing community, and we just approved a tax in Perigold, the voters did, to add 16 new police officers. So in addition to all the work that our district court judge already has to do, we're going to have 16 new police officers on the streets in Perigold that are going to be making arrests, requesting search warrants, is going to add even more to his workload. And so with that, in talking with the district court judge, he said that it would be helpful if we could add another district court judge position.
I know that he works hard. He has a lot of work in signing search warrants late at night. He may get a search warrant request at 1.30 in the morning. And these are the things and the duties of a district court judge that many people don't see. And so if you just look at the time that he has to spend in court, that's one thing. But it's another thing if you try to take into consideration the warrants that he has to sign at all hours of the night, search warrants, arrest warrants.
But the court that he holds, he has civil division, small claims division, criminal division, and just the way that Greene County is growing, the way that the city of Perigold is growing. and then putting the additional responsibilities of Clay County on him. And what you have in Clay County, you have the city of Piggott, city of Corning, city of Rector, city of Marmaduke. They all have police officers, police agencies. They have state police that are stationed in Clay County. And so now he has to get all of those warrants, all of those affidavits,
and the Clay County Sheriff's Office from multiple law enforcement agencies that he did not have to serve. And so because of that, we feel like that there's a need for another district court judge position. That's what this bill does. But very interestingly, I want to point this out. So before I filed this bill, I had a meeting with the mayor of Perigold, the Greene County judge, and then I didn't speak personally with the Clay County judge, but I know Senator Johnson did. And they want a new judgeship so badly that they are willing to pay for it.
So that includes the salary, the retirement, all the benefits. The city of Paragould and Greene County will pay, and this is in the bill, for 75% of the entire expenditure necessary to add this judgeship. And Clay County will pick up the remaining 25% of the expenditure. So the point is, it's not going to cost the state any money if we do this. And so I think if it's not going to cost us any money, there's not going to be any fiscal impact to the state,
then I think there's a good reason for us to do that and accommodate people who are asking for it. So with that, that's what the
bill does, and I'm happy to answer any questions.
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
31:50
Representative Gonzalez, you're recognized for a question. Well, you kind of answered my question because I was going to ask about if these cities and counties had agreed to pay this additional salary. But now I want to ask, do we have the situation anywhere else in the state where we have multiple district court judges where the salary is shared by cities or counties or anything like that?
And then, you know, what happens in the future when, if that's not the case, and what happens in the future when they come in and say, oh, well, you pay for everybody else's, but for some reason we're paying for ours, and we want to eliminate that, so now the state's on the
hook for it once again. Let me answer, can I answer that question? Sure. Yeah, let me answer that question. We just passed the big bill on district courts, and it's now
ACT. I can't tell you what ACT it is. there is no county or cities that will be paying for their district judges.
The state has taken that on. And
so this concept is not allowed. I mean, we have taken that on because they're now state district court judges, and that was part of that 20-, 25-year process. So, no. To answer your question, no. Now there are some cost sharing in clerks because the clerks aren't state employees, okay? So I don't want that to get confused, but there is that cost sharing, but not for district judges.
I'm sorry to interrupt, but it's just one of those things. We've been through all that study, and Rep. Gonzales, you weren't part of that committee that heard all of that. And so I just wanted you to understand what that was. Rep. Clowney, you're recognized for
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
33:35
a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Gasway, I'm sure you can guess my question. So we have a district court resource assessment board on which I sit. The job of that board, the statutory obligation of that board is to make recommendations for or against a new district court when people in the state come
to them and ask. So it's a pretty clear set out process that since I've served, a number of judges and other stakeholders have come before us to ask for a recommendation for a district court. I guess my question to you is why didn't you utilize
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
34:08
decrab in the formation of this? So that's a great question. I did anticipate that question. I believe the responsibility to take a proposal like this, I'm not sure that that falls on the legislator. I think that our current district court judge considered that, and I think there may have been some discussions about taking it
before D-CRAB. I know that that's typical protocol, but it's not required. My understanding is that this legislature, if it wants to create a new judgeship, it can. But you are absolutely correct. The typical protocol is that you take these types of proposals to D-CRAB. You get their approval because they analyze, as you've noted, whether or not this is necessary based on caseload, a number of other factors. And for one reason or another, which I don't really know right now. That didn't happen, but that does not prohibit us from passing a bill to
create a new judgeship. Representative Clowney, if you'd like to look up Arkansas Code Annotated 16-17-103, the duties of the District Court Recess Assessment Board, which we refer to as DCRAB, is tasked by the legislature to recommend at each regular session one criteria for the creation and placement of full-time state-funded district court judgeships to revisions of current district court judgeships or the redistricting of district court judgeships, looking at the
caseload in the geographical area, and then the procurium of the Supreme Court also enters into their discussions in any other matter that the board determines. And the three, the other part that we've established in law is the number and placement of full-time state-funded district judgeships. So that's what DECRAB does. Representative Tosh, you're recognized for a question. Thank
you, Madam Chair. Representative, I'm just curious.
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
36:03
I know there's probably been a lot of discussion and you did a good job of explaining the need for the additional district
court, but how is that going to affect the, I guess, the city attorney or right now? Are they going to share those the city attorney will they share those responsibilities or what what thought has been given to how that part of it's going to be handled yeah that's a
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
36:28
good question i mean in terms of the increased workload that i think the city of perigold expects to see do you mean from the hiring of those additional officers yes and
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
36:38
then the workload with that and plus now i'm sure
the city attorney for just one they've got one one court one district court now
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
36:48
they'll have two Am I understanding that correctly? Yes. There would be two divisions within Division 17. That's going to require more court dates. You'll have to have more time. The attorneys will be spending more time. I don't know if they'll want to hire someone new. In Piragould, it's the Branch Thompson firm that is the city attorney,
has been for years, and they hire people to serve as their assistants. So maybe they choose to do that. I don't know. But, yes, to your point, it will be more court dates. It will be more resources all the
way around. Representative Springer, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair, and good
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
37:32
afternoon. I'm not sure that I heard, but can you give us some information with respect to the caseload that you're talking about between the two cities? Do you have any information regarding that?
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
37:45
Thank you for that question. I
don't have all that information at my fingertips. I think
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
37:53
that... I see Mr. Kavanis back here in the back from
AOC. Would you be able to answer Representative Springer's question? I can. If you'll come to the table and identify yourself, that may help Representative Springer. If you have that information and you can share it, if you'll identify yourself for the record, And
then, Representative Springer, you may need to repeat your question.
Speaker 91
38:19
I'm not sure if Mr. Kavanis heard it or not. I'm Keith Kavanis, staff attorney with the Administrative
Office of the Courts. Representative Springer, you want to repeat
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
38:34
your question? Yes, ma'am. Let me see if I can remember. I think we were talking about caseload between the two cities. Do we have any information with respect to what the current caseloads that are in question between the district court judge and the two counties, the two cities?
Speaker 91
38:51
Representative Springer, I did not bring information to break it down by city because currently one judge serves both counties and all of the departments of the court. So AOC caseload data shows for 2021 there was 20,117 cases filed in the 17th district. In 2022, 18,653, 2023, 18,063, and 2024, 17,789.
So actually the data shows the caseload is trending downward. Thank you. Members, while
we have Representative Kavanis at the end
of the table, are there any other questions in regard that he may be able to answer as to caseload? I have a question. Mr. Kavanis, can you give us an idea how many days of the week this particular court meets?
Speaker 91
40:06
Yes, Chairman Dalby, according to the currently approved administrative plan filed by this court, the court is held nine days per month. Four of those nine court days are half days. There is no court held in the 17th district on Thursday or Friday.
Members, any other questions from Representative Kavanis? I mean, Mr. Kavanis, sorry about
that. Former Judge Kavanis, I guess I should say. Seeing no further questions, thank you for coming to the end of the table. We have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Members, are there any other questions of Representative Gassaway? Seeing no further questions, Representative Gassaway, you're recognized to close for your bill. Thank you,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
41:06
Madam Chair, and I do appreciate the questions by the committee.
I think those are good questions. I will say that it is within the province of this legislature and this committee, if we pass this bill out of here, to create a judgeship or not. And while I understand that decrab is typically an important part of that process, it's not required for us to create a new judgeship. I understand that the argument has been made that the caseload is going down, But the City of Paragould, again, with the hiring of these 16 new officers, is going to create a lot more work for our district court.
And I'll just go back to point out that the judgeship was a full-time position when it was just Greene County. And now they've added Clay County to that, which comes with a lot more law enforcement agencies and a lot more responsibilities. But no additional help for the judge, no additional money. We're going to put a lot more work on you, but we're not going to give you any more money, and we're not going to give you any more help. And that's the position that my district court judge has found himself in, and I don't think any of us would accept that if we were in a similar position.
And so he's requested that it would be helpful if we had another district court judge, and so that's why I'm running this bill. And, again, I've also talked with, and I think this is an important point, My local leaders in the mayor of Paragould, the county judge for Green County, the county judge for Clay County. And the point is, they would like this judgeship so much that they're willing to pay for it. And I understand that that's not typical protocol, and I understand that that's the process that we're moving away from. We're moving to a fully state-funded court system.
However, I will say with deputy prosecutors, for instance, there are certain districts around the state where the localities fund the deputy prosecutors. And so my point to you is, if the city and the county are willing to pay for it, it's not going to be at any expense to the state of Arkansas, then I guess my point would be, why not allow it? And so with that, I'm closed for the bill. Would appreciate a good vote and make a motion to do pass.
Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Representative Clowney, you're recognized for
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
43:32
discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Gassaway, you're doing right by your district and your people by, you know, advocating for what it is that they want. I'm certainly sympathetic to the struggle of your judge and so many across the state. I think what's important is that D-CRAB exists. And, you know, if you're reading of the law is that it's not required to go through D-CRAB, certainly understand that. But I think the advantage is that D-CRAB can take a holistic look at what's happening across our state.
It was created to avoid, you know, individual legislators, I think, every legislative session coming forward and suggesting new district courts in their district. And, you know, this problem sounds real and burdensome, and I would encourage, if this bill doesn't get through today, you know, coming before D-CRAB and seeing what we can do to help give some relief. But for today, I'm going to have to be a no because there are just so many others in the state that I think would have asked for the same thing. So I will be a no on this. I will also say that I'm concerned about the funding piece.
Listening to Chair Dalby, it sounds like the funding mechanism that's put forward in this bill is no longer going to be possible. So for those reasons, I'll be a no. Members, any other discussions? Seeing no further
discussions, all in favor of the motions, please say aye. Any opposed, say no. The bill has failed. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Committee.
Members, we're going back to the very top of our agenda. It's time to start Senate bills. For anybody who is in the room or watching, it is the goal of this committee that we will stop at 7 o'clock at the latest because no good decisions happen when we are tired. And these are Senate bills, so. Representative Beatty, Senate Bill 302.
Members, if you'll turn to Senate Bill 302. We have an impact assessment. We're passing it out, so. Thank you.
All right, Representative Beatty, you are recognized to identify yourself and present Senate
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
46:27
Bill 302. State Representative Howard Beatty, District 95. Members, here to present Senate Bill 302, and it's to create the criminal offense of gift card fraud, and it also has emergency clause on the bill. This bill is aimed at addressing the issue of gift card fraud by creating a criminal offense.
Based on the summary of the bill, it has the definitions, card holder and card issuer identified, the redemption, and then the value to cover the scope of the offense. The bill states that a person commits gift card fraud if they acquire, retain, or use a gift card or gift card redemption information with the purpose of defrauding the owner of property. The severity of the offense is determined by the value of the gift card
or the gift card redemption information involved. It ranges from a Class A misdemeanor for lower value cases to a Class B felony for higher value cases. Emergency clause basically is there's a prevalence of gift card fraud in the state and the economic consequences faced by our business and consumer makes this an emergency and requires the emergency clause. So with that, I'll entertain any questions.
Members, any questions? We have no one signed up to speak for or against this bill. Representative Beatty, you're recognized to close
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
47:59
for your bill. Members, again, this bill just aims to combat gift card fraud, establish those penalties for offenders based on the value, and provide some immediate protection for Arkansas businesses. With that, I'm closed to offer a
motion, do pass, and would appreciate a good vote. Members, we have a motion
to do pass on the table.
Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have
it. You have passed the bill. Do you have another one
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
48:33
representing Beatty while you're there? I do have another one. Senate Bill 449 is with Senator Dees. Hang on just a
minute. Let everybody find that. Members, if you have an agenda, it's on the second page of the agenda.
Senate Bill 449. Hang on just one moment.
All right. You're recognized to
identify yourself for the record, And you may
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
48:59
present Senate Bill 449. State Representative Howard Beatty, District 95. Madam Chair, members of the committee to present Senate Bill 449. Basically, it's a bill to provide civil immunity for the confiscation of alternative nicotine products, vape products, liquid products, tobacco products, and cigarette papers from a minor at a school. Basically, what this bill is doing, it aims to provide civil immunity for individuals who confiscate certain materials from a minor at a school setting.
The products covered by this bill include, as I said earlier, the alternative nicotine products and vape products. Basically, this bill is meant to protect those who take action to confiscate these products from minors at school and to prevent the use of these substances on school grounds. With
that, I'll entertain any questions. Representative Collins, you're recognized
for a question. Thank you, Madam
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
49:56
Chair. What kind of lawsuits have been coming out of confiscation of these products?
Representative Collins, I'm not aware that there have been any lawsuits on the side. I think it's the concern about the lawsuits that could come out. It's why they're
wanting this immunity. Follow-up, please. You're recognized. I'm genuinely, I mean, I'm not even, I'm not really against
it at all. I'm probably for it. I mean, how could you even sue someone for taking a nicotine product? What would be even the theory behind it? What would someone say? What would be
the cause of action? Well, I think some of the fear from some of the educators
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
50:31
and folks on school grounds is that that action could lead to litigation with other things right now in society. I think there's just a fear. Some of them, it's their unwillingness to act based
on a fear of being sued or placed in that position. Okay. You good? You need another
follow-up? You're good? All right. Any other questions? Members, seeing no other questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill.
Representative Beatty, you're recognized to close for your
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
51:05
bill. Members, I appreciate your attention. Again, it's just to provide a little protection to those educators, folks at school, so that they have a
little more confidence when they confiscate these products. They're not going to be placing themselves in some position of having to face a lawsuit on that side and also to prevent the use of these substances on school grounds. With that, I'd offer a motion to do pass, and I'd appreciate a good vote. Members, we have a motion to do
pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion?
Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. You have
passed the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Committee. All right,
members, let's go back up to the top of our agenda. It's my understanding Representative Duke couldn't be here to present Senate Bill 314. Representative Richardson, you've indicated that you will present Senate Bill 314, so you'll be recognized to go to the end of the table.
We're passing out an impact assessment. Just give us just a couple of minutes and get that out, or 30 seconds, and then we'll go with you. Members, this will be Senate Bill 314.
Goodness, Josh. Representative Richardson, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 314.
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
53:05
Thank you, Madam Chair. Scott Richardson, District 13, running this bill
on behalf of Representative Duke, who had to leave for a family emergency. As I understand it, the crux of this bill is associated with addressing the challenges with sexual solicitation, current undefined or unclassified misdemeanor. I'm moving that to a standard offense for the first offense, Class A misdemeanor, and for the second and subsequent offenses being Class D felony.
Speaker 118
53:41
And with that, I will attempt to field questions. Members, any questions? Seeing
no questions. We have no one who's signed up to speak for or against the
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
54:00
bill. Representative Richardson, you're recognized to close for the bill. I think I've said everything
I can say about it, so I'd appreciate a good vote and would make motion do pass. Members, we have
a motion to do pass on the table.
Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of
the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed say no. No. The
ayes have it. Members, we've had a couple of representatives who've
had the joy of sitting with us all day long, waiting for their Senate bill to come up, so I'm going to drop down a couple
of Senate bills, just because some of us might need their vote on the House floor tomorrow for something. So we're going to just drop down a couple of bills and go to Senate Bill 313. Representative Moore, you're recognized to come to the end of the table for Senate Bill 313. We have an amendment on that bill that we
need to pass out. So let's get the amendment taken care of.
It's on the first page. Senate Bill 313. Representative Moore,
you're recognized to identify yourself and present your amendment. Thank you, Madam Chair. Kendra Moore, State Representative,
Speaker 127
55:47
District 23. Madam Chair, with your permission, may I have Scott Bradley and Taylor Hanford join me at the table?
Certainly. While they're joining the table, you want to explain your amendment real quick so then we can take care of that a
Speaker 127
56:04
little bit. Yes. So just a few points to highlight on the amendment. The changes on page two was just suggested by the Judicial Council as part of a judicial economy efficiency. Page four of those changes were just to address lack of fitness to proceed language regarding administration of medication. And then page six just clears up some language on motions to request an in-camera or ex-parte hearing to protect potentially privileged information.
Evidently on your iPad it shows six pages. We're counting three, but I think that takes care of it. Representative Eubanks, we have a motion
to adopt the amendment. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of adopting the amendment, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it.
Representative Moore, you're recognized to present your bill as amended.
Speaker 127
56:58
Thank you, Madam Chair. So Senate Bill 313 is a culmination of months of hard work between many agencies toward a common goal.
DHS, the Judicial Council, the Sheriff's Association, and many prosecutors have all collaborated to reach what we feel is a good bill to help our judicial process. I sit on the Public Health Committee, and so June of last year, we had a joint meeting with the House and Senate Public Health that was held in Fort Smith, and we heard testimony from many of our county sheriffs regarding a systemic issue such as hundreds of detainees in county jails awaiting forensic evaluations and treatment.
This was the catalyst that triggered the creation of a working group, including legislators, county sheriffs, DHS, mental health experts, judges, and prosecutors to address these issues. A forensic evaluation process or fitness-to-proceed examination is a critical part of our judicial system. For we non-lawyers in the room, this is the way the courts determine whether an offender is mentally capable of standing trial. Unfortunately, these exams take time to administer and can create a costly backlog in our county jails,
resulting in extended stays that burden our system and delay definitive care for those with mental health conditions. The ultimate goal is to move these defendants through the system quicker, getting them the treatment that they need, and ultimately giving justice to victims quicker. So what this bill seeks to solve is a few little things here. Reduces the time it takes to get that forensic evaluation after that fitness-to-proceed motion occurs. This will reduce the time from 10 to 6 months.
decreases the backlog in the judicial system by decreasing the number of evaluations ordered, and reducing the number of inmates sitting in our county jails awaiting evaluations, reducing costs, keeping our jailers safe, and bringing justice to victims through restorative services. Again, I just can't say enough about DHS and their partnership in this legislation. A lot of this was led by DHS in the development of these solutions, such as additional beds at the Ashe Hospital, reimbursement for medication,
and a process to PATH for these restorative services. The bill is supported by the Arkansas Sheriff's Association, the County Judges Association, and DHS. And with that, I will attempt to answer some questions. Members, any questions? Seeing no questions from the committee, we
do have a couple of folks who have signed up to speak against the bill. Greg Parrish. Mr. Parrish, you're
recognized to go to the end of the table. Identify yourself and may speak against the bill.
Speaker 128
1:00:01
Thank you, Madam Chair. Greg Parrish, the Arkansas Public Defender Commission. A couple of things I think I need
Speaker 129
1:00:08
to point out. What we're talking about, the terms that you'll see in the bill, is fitness to proceed and criminal responsibility. Fitness to proceed is if someone can assist their attorney in their defense, meaning if I go try to talk to my client and he or she thinks they're on Mars.
Criminal responsibility comes in after fitness has been determined. to determine will or not they were criminally responsible at the time they committed the act or suffering from some mental disease or defect that impacted them. We handle probably 90% of these cases. I don't see that the problem is the evaluation process. That's not the problem. The problem is once an individual has been found not fit to proceed,
that's when it impacts the sheriff's offices because these people are sitting in jail six, seven, eight, nine, ten months awaiting transport to the department, to the Arkansas State Hospital, for restoration. That's the delay. And now we've started, we're allowing for restoration to start taking place inside the jail. Just think if you had to see your doctor under conditions like that for a medical need.
Now, a couple of things in the bill that are also concerning is that whenever I file a petition, when I file any legal pleading as an attorney, as any attorney will tell you, It is filed in good faith. If I file something that's not in good faith, I'm subject to sanctions by the court. But this bill yet requires me to sign something saying it's in good faith and set forth facts
that may very well be privileged information that I've got from my client. So it requires me to state the reasons. You will see the jail-based restoration on page 2, line 9, where it talks about restoring these people in jail. I'll just say the name of Larry Eugene Price. That ought to ring some bells.
And finally, the one thing I'll point out is page 6, line 10, which I would think needs some definition. A law enforcement officer may employ reasonable force in cases where an individual refuses administration of court-ordered treatment or medication. Let that soak in. You've got a person in jail
who is not fit and the statute allows a law enforcement officer to employ reasonable force to make sure he or she takes their medication or their treatment. What is reasonable force? And with that said, and then the thing I will show is the following paragraph provides for immunity for that law enforcement officer.
Members, any questions of Mr. Parrish? Representative Hudson, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. I
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
1:03:53
think those of us here at the end of the table were not sure who Larry Eugene Price is, and I was just curious because I wanted to make sure I understood what
Speaker 129
1:04:03
you were trying to tell us. He was the one that was in the Sebastian County Jail suffering from a severe mental defect and died in jail.
Thank you. Members, any other questions? Representative Springer, you're recognized for a question.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for being here. Can you tell us
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
1:04:22
whether or not you've had any discussions with any of the persons responsible for this legislation or
Speaker 129
1:04:27
any other officials? Very early on, we had an Arkansas Association of Counties meeting where I was invited at, and this was brought up. This was several months ago, and we sat and we met, and I expressed my concerns with the bill in its form at that time and the problems that I see
Speaker 135
1:04:43
from the defense side, especially the public defender side. Follow-up. You're recognized. No response, no comments?
Speaker 129
1:04:48
My suggestions, I believe, were taken in very good faith. I know Mr. Rosenzweig has made some suggestions which have been adopted as well in this
bill. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we have another individual who's signed up to speak against the bill. Mr. Rosenzweig,
you're recognized to come to the end of the table. Identify yourself,
Speaker 137
1:05:12
and you may give your statement. Jeff Rosenzweig, Arkansas. Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. I'll associate myself with Mr. Parrish's
Speaker 138
1:05:19
problems with the bill. I do appreciate that the amendment did fix two of the problems we noted in the original bill. One is the privileged issue that now allows in camera, And then secondly, it adopts the constitutional issues regarding involuntary medication. I still think you're going to have some problems with law enforcement officers administering medication.
I think they probably should need to have some sort of medical personnel, the jail nurse or someone like that, the physician doing the administration and not a jailer who has no significant medical capabilities. Hang
Speaker 139
1:06:04
on, let me see, are there any questions? Seeing no questions, thank you,
Mr. Rosenzweig. Members, we have no
one else who signed up to speak for or against the bill.
Representative Moore, are you recognized to come and close for your
Speaker 127
1:06:37
bill? thank you madam chair thank you committee for your time we're excited about this bill the collaboration and the results that we'll have for our jailers for our mental health professionals and for our victims representing more is closed for
our bill what is what are the wishes of the
committee. We have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion as amended? Excuse me. Thank you. Motion to do pass as amended, Representative Beatty. Thank you. Any discussion of that motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. No. The ayes have it. You have
passed the bill. Thank you, committee. Thank you, Madam Chair. Representative Kavanaugh, we are going to go down to yours since you have graciously been here
with us all day long. Members, let's turn to Senate Bill 426. Senate Bill 426. Thank you, members. Fran Cavanaugh, State
Representative, District 30. You're recognized. Present your bill. Thank you. And Madam Chair, I have someone
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:07:45
here that's supposed to help me. So if it's all right, I can ask her to come down. Should take. We know that person.
Come on down, Tani. Thank you very much.
Hang on just one moment. 4-9, no, 4-26. Tani, if you'll recognize, state your name for the record. Good evening. Tani Rall, Chief
Speaker 145
1:08:11
Counsel for the Department of Corrections. You're recognized.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:08:15
Thank you. Members, I'm just going to give you a quick overview of this bill. It does three things. And the bill is actually called the Defense Against Criminal Illegal. Act. What it does is if a certain set of crimes or serious felonies are actually committed with
violence, it's going to have enhanced penalties. It's going to work with to make sure our local law enforcement officers cooperate with ICE. And then the third thing it will do is prohibit any sanctuary policies anywhere in the state. And that's a broad overview of what the bill actually does. Three things. And with that, I'll be glad to start taking questions if Tawny would like to. Representative Clowney, you're recognized for a question. Thank
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:08:58
you, Madam Chair. Representative Kavanaugh, are you aware of any localities that currently are or want to be sanctuary cities?
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:09:05
I don't personally know of any, but I do know that I've seen them throughout the country, and there's a lot
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:09:14
of failed sanctuary policies. Follow-up. You're recognized. Okay, so I guess I'm a little bit concerned about the cost piece as well. I have a number of concerns, but that's one concern. What assurances do we have that the federal government will reimburse us and that the costs of this are not going to fall on our local jails or local governments in some way?
Speaker 145
1:09:38
So we have a couple individuals at the department who have worked extensively on cooperative agreements with the federal government. We're confident that this isn't going to be anything meaningful at the department level. I can't speak for the counties, but at the Department of Corrections level, we're comfortable with the cost portion of this. Members, any other questions? Representing Clowney, you're
recognized. Sorry, I don't want
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:10:07
to hammer them, but I have a couple more questions if you don't mind.
I know we're obviously super concerned about space in our county jails. It's something I hear about all the time. What do we see as the impact of this on that space concern? Specifically, do we have any sense of turnaround time if folks are incarcerated, new folks are incarcerated? What happens? What's the relationship? What's the turnaround time with ICE? Those are my concerns. I do
Speaker 145
1:10:38
not know what the turnaround time is on ICE. I think it would be speculative to predict any impact if there was to be an increase in volume because of this.
I will say that the federal government, once they take over, does reimburse county jails pretty lucratively. So that might offset some of that. Okay, one more follow-up. Certainly.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:10:58
It's not exactly actually the money on that piece that I'm concerned about at Space, just because it's something I hear so much about from my county. But I guess, speaking of my county, and this will be my last question, but I remember a lot of talk about the 287G program way back when. why isn't it best to just sort of leave it up to the counties
whether they want to participate in that program rather than going this route? Well,
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:11:24
I think what we're trying to do is have a statewide policy for this. Members,
any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we do have an individual signed up to speak against this bill. Mr. Rosenzweig, if you'll come to the end of the table, you'll be recognized to
Speaker 139
1:11:47
speak against the bill. Jeff Rosenzweig, Arkansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
The problem with this bill, it says it criminalizes a
Speaker 138
1:11:56
person as illegally or unlawfully in the United States but does not give definitions, which presumably would be under federal law. A big problem you're going to have on this, which you know from the headlines recently, is does a person have notice that he is illegally or unlawfully in the United States?
Now, obviously, if a person has swum the Rio Grande and jumped over the Trump wall, one would presumably know that. But what about the person, the people who have a student visa, and all of a sudden the student visa is revoked the day before, and he doesn't have notice? Or what if, again, the person thinks he's legal, or the green card is revoked, and he doesn't have notice? What do we do about those? We have a problem when a state is essentially trying to enforce federal law,
and we don't even have a statutory definition or require that the person have noticed that he is illegally or unlawfully here. Members, any questions for Mr. Rosenzweig? Seeing no questions, thank you
for your comments this afternoon. We have no one else signed up to speak for or against the bill. Representative Kavanaugh, you're recognized to close for your bill.
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
1:13:30
Thank you, members. As I started out with this bill, it really is trying to accomplish three things. We've covered those. I think that it's a good bill to start, and we made a promise that we would make Arkansas safer, and that's what this is an attempt to do is to make Arkansans safer in their own state. And with that, I would appreciate a good vote. Members, Representative
Kavanaugh, who's closed for a bill, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion?
Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say
no. No. The ayes have it. You have passed the bill. Thank you, members. Appreciate it. Members, we're going to, I have two senators in, and we're going to go to Senator Tucker first, and then Senator Bryant after that. So, Senator Tucker, you're recognized. Well, you have two bills, Senate Bill 485 and Senate Bill 575. So whichever two, which one you want to take up first?
Members, let's turn to Senate Bill 485. Senate Bill 485. Senator Tucker, you're recognized. Come to the end of the table,
identify yourself, and present your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm going
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:14:46
to defer to my, I'll participate as much as the committee would like for me to, but I'm going to defer to the House sponsor, Representative Gassaway.
And with your permission, Madam Chair, we're going to invite Estrella Lopez from the CSG Justice Center to come up and join us. Ms. Lopez?
Jimmy, do you want me to start? I think I'm
Speaker 162
1:15:25
just saying. Representative Gattisway, we're bringing you a copy of the bill. I've got it
pulled up now. Representative Gasway, if you'll identify yourself. You're recognized.
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:15:39
Thank you, Madam Chair. State Representative Jimmy Gasway, District 31. Members, Senate Bill 485 is the act to reduce recidivism. As many of you may recall, under the Protect Arkansas Act, We did several things which increased criminal penalties for certain offenses and particularly reformed what we termed our broken parole system so that those convicted of the most heinous crimes, the 18 most heinous crimes in Arkansas law, would have to serve 100% of their time.
Others, 53 crimes, would have to serve 85% of their time. And then there were some other categories. That was all in an effort to be tough on crime, but as a part of the Protect Arkansas Act, we also realized that we have an obligation to try to reduce recidivism. And so for the last two years, we have convened a recidivism task force. I believe Chairwoman Dalby has been a member of that. I was a member. Senator Gilmore was the chair. Senator Tucker was a member.
And as a part of that task force, we brought in the Council of State Governments to study how we can effectively implement policies to reduce recidivism in Arkansas. As many of you know, we have one of the highest recidivism rates in the country, and it's important if we're going to control our prison population and help the people of our state that we bring down our recidivism rate. And so we've studied that for the last two years with the help of the Council of State Governments. Australia Lopez is here, has flown in today to help present the bill,
and I think she can give you probably a better outline than I can of all of the ideas that we came up with that are a part of this bill to help reduce recidivism in Arkansas. And with that, Madam Chair,
I would ask that Ms. Lopez be recognized. Ms. Lopez, if you'll identify yourself for
Speaker 166
1:17:36
the record, you're recognized. Thank you. My name is Estella Lopez, and I'm with the Council of State Governments Justice Center. The Council of State Governments Justice Center is a national, nonpartisan, nonprofit, And as has been said, we've been working with Arkansas since 2023, providing support to the Legislative Recidivism Reduction Task Force.
The task force was established to answer some key questions, including identifying the drivers of the state's recidivism rate, assessing how effective supervision policies are, and identifying unnecessary barriers to reentry into society. Under the leadership from legislators and DOC leadership, we had an opportunity to look at data from across the criminal justice agencies, visit different offices and facilities, and engage in hundreds of conversations with stakeholders from all corners of the state,
representing all aspects of the criminal justice system. And this bill is a reflection of the task force's work. Arkansas's prison population is high. As of July of 2024, it was the highest it's been in 10 years, despite experiencing significant decreases during the pandemic. At the same time, the state's recidivism rate is also high. For people that left prison in the 2014 to 2016 cohort, half of those individuals would return to DOC custody within three years.
Arkansas relies heavily on community supervision, 59% of felonies resolved to probation, and over 75% of the nearly 91,000 people under the DOC's correctional control are in the community rather than in a facility. However, in speaking with community supervision agents, officers, supervisors, and individuals who are under community supervision, it became clear that the community supervision system is severely under-resourced. There are high caseloads, inconsistent uses of evidence-based practices, and limited resources that really constrain the ability that supervision officers have to impact people's behavior,
and that far too often ultimately results in the intervention of incarceration, which is far more costly. Through the task force's work, we found that from 2014 to 2023, on average, 72% of prison admissions were individuals who were under community supervision by the DOC in the form of either probation or parole at the time. This bill represents an opportunity to meaningfully improve supervision practices in order to reduce recidivism and increase public safety.
The bill will ensure that valuable supervision resources are focused on higher-risk individuals and that the tools and practices being used in community supervision are ones that have evidence to support that they actually work. And this will also ensure that there is consistency across the system. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this bill.
Thank you, Ms. Lopez. Members, are there any questions? Seeing no questions.
We have no one who has signed up to speak against the bill. Representative Gasway, you're recognized
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:20:55
to close for the bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. And again, this bill makes a number of changes with respect to kind of how we're doing things, particularly in the prison system with regard to evidence-based practices that we're going to implement, and that was a big part of the PROTECT Act, that we implement evidence-based practices, which have been studied extensively now by Council of State Governments
in our prison system to help reduce recidivism and then provide kind of post-prison resources for those who are released from our prisons so that they can be successful and not reoffend and end up in prison again. And so that was the goal of this bill, and I want to thank and praise the Council of State Governments Australia and her team for the hours and hours that they invested in Arkansas. As she said, going across the entire state, she came to Northeast Arkansas,
visited with several stakeholders in Northeast Arkansas. They covered Central Arkansas, Northwest, Southeast, Southwest, really the entirety of the state to gain perspective and to develop the best strategies to reduce recidivism. And it's just been excellent work, and it's been an honor to work with them. And also, Senator Tucker, Chairwoman Dalby, we had members of the Attorney General's office. We had judges from around the state. It really was a collaborative effort, and so I just want to thank everyone who was involved in that. I think this is a good bill, and I think when we implement these strategies,
I sincerely hope and believe that it will reduce recidivism in Arkansas. So with that, I'm closed for the bill and make a motion due pass. Members,
we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. You have passed the bill.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, committee. Members, while we have Senator Tucker at the end of the table, let's turn to Senate Bill 575. Senate Bill 575. We have an amendment on that.
Senator Tucker will let you present the amendment before we get to the
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:22:58
bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. The amendment incorporates a suggestion from
DF&A. We're creating a task force to study some of the fees in the justice system. AOC asked to have a second member on there. Cities and counties asked to add one person on there, so it does that. And then for everything but the task force, we're going to make the effective date, July 1, 2026.
And that's part of an ongoing conversation with the governor's office and the agencies who are affected. That's the amendment.
Members, you've heard an explanation amendment under the will of the committee. We have a
motion to adopt the amendment. Any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Any opposed
say no. The ayes have it. Senator Tucker, you're recognized to present the bill as amended. Thank you, Madam Chair
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:23:45
and members. I don't think I said Clark Tucker, Senator of District 14. I
think especially those of us who have served on judiciary know that we need some meaningful reform of the fees in the justice system.
And this is step one in that process. When it comes to the fees, I really think the two most harmful fees that exist in Arkansas are the installment fee, which we've had a lot of discussion about, and also the driver's license reinstatement fee. The reason for the driver's license reinstatement fee is because, now, if you've had a couple of DWIs, by all means, suspend the driver's license. But if you get your driver's license suspended for failure to pay your fines and fees, then that prevents you from going to work to pay off your fines and fees. So this is an idea that I stole from Governor Kevin Stitt out of Oklahoma, which is to take special revenue of these fees and to turn them into general revenue.
The reason for that is because if you try to reform the fee itself, then you have that legislative work to do, but then you also have work to do with the recipient of the special revenue funds. In the case of the driver's license reinstatement fee, for example, a lot of that money goes to the Arkansas State Police. Now, I want to reform the driver's license reinstatement, but I don't want to take a single dollar away from the state police when I do that. And so this is approaching this in a way that guarantees that all of those agencies including the state police in that example, will still get their money.
So what we'll be doing, but again, we're postponing the effective date for a year, and I'll explain that. But what we're doing is we're taking all the money that these agencies have been collecting from special revenue, we're going to put it into the general revenue pot, and then we're going to pay those agencies the same amount of money out of general revenue. So we're not actually spending any money, and the agencies that receive the special revenue will still be getting the same amount of money that they have been getting. And as I said, this is step one in the process. And even if we don't ever take step two, there is real value in this approach because some
entities that receive money, they sustain their own funding by imposing these fees on people, which is a conflict of interest on their part. So if we fund them out of general revenue, then at a minimum, we remove that conflict of interest. But if we come back in a future legislative session and any legislator, whether it's me or somebody else says, hey, we need to reform this installment fee, then we don't have the administrative office of the courts at the table saying, hey, you're cutting our funding. And so that's the thought process behind it. The reason why we set the effective date for July 1, 2026, that's when the next fiscal year starts.
That gives us a year to make sure we're getting those numbers right. At the end of the day, there's only two agencies affected by this bill, the administrative office of the courts and DF&A. DF&A is really a dispersing agency. for a lot of the funds that come through there, including the state police, as I mentioned. So we're going to work with DF&A. We're going to work with AOC to make sure we get in the governor's office and everyone to make sure we get those numbers right. And we'll set those numbers in the fiscal session this time next year. And in the meantime, we're going to have a task force to look at that issue specifically
to make sure we're getting those numbers right and to look at the remainder of the fees and see if there's an opportunity for other reform of those fees. So I've worked extensively with those two agencies, the Administrative Office of the Courts and DF&A and the Governor's Office and other folks, including Chairman Dismang of the Budget Committee. There's no opposition to the bill that I'm aware of. We've addressed everyone's concerns and accommodated everyone's concerns. With that, Madam Chair, I'd be happy to take any questions.
Members, are there any questions? Seeing no questions, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Senator Tucker,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:27:27
you're recognized to close for the bill. I appreciate very much y'all's accommodation in hearing me today. I'm closed for
the bill, and I appreciate a good vote. Members, Senator Tucker, it's closed for the bill. What is the will of the committee? Representative Beatty, is a motion to do pass as amended? Any discussion of the motion to do pass as amended? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye.
Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. Congratulations. Representative
Moore? Hang on, Senator. Do you want to get to yours real quick, because yours is at the top. I did promise him this is Senator Stone's bill, Senate Bill 575. And then, Senator Bryant, you'll be on deck to...
Oh, 375, Senate Bill 375. Are that correct? Yes, ma'am. And Madam Chair, if
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:28:24
you'll allow me to have Justin Brashers with the Attorney General's office. Members, Senate Bill 375, it's the third
one from the top of our page. Thank you, Madam Chair. There is an impact assessment. Hang on. Give us 30 seconds, Steve. It passed out.
All right, Representative Moore, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 375.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:29:25
Thank you, Madam Chair, colleagues. Jeremiah Moore here, State Representative, District 61. I'll
make this brief and simple. Senate Bill 375 proposes putting the penalty of capital punishment on the table for those convicted of child rape, which is defined as forcible rape to victims that are 13 years or younger.
This is not a sentencing mandate. This simply leaves that for the ability of the justice system to put that as one of its sentences. This does not apply to perpetrators who are minors themselves. You have to be 18 years or older for this sentence. This punishment is reserved for the most heinous of child rape crimes. And lastly, it is set up to challenge a current Supreme Court bench ruling from 2008.
This bill was greatly written by the Attorney General's office themselves, and it is set up for a court challenge. I will note that the only sitting member of that bench from 2008 is Justice Alito, who wrote the dissent. I'll leave you with this quote before I open for questions. Indeed, I have little doubt that, in the eyes of ordinary Americans, the very worst child rapists, predators who seek out and inflict serious physical and emotional injury on defenseless young children, are the epitome of moral depravity.
Speaker 186
1:31:03
I will just second. Make sure to identify yourself for the record. Thank you. My apologies, Madam Chair. Justin Brasher, Senior Assistant Attorney General with the Arkansas Office of the Attorney General. We were very involved in the writing of this bill and support it. This is, as Representative Moore said, targeting the worst of the worst, and we're behind that. As a former prosecutor myself, any good prosecutor anticipates what the people against him might say. So to quickly address a couple of things, the first is that, yes, there's a 2008 court decision,
Kennedy v. Louisiana, which says that this punishment currently is unconstitutional, and we believe that that is faulty reasoning and are prepared to challenge that in court and wrote this bill with that intention. So with that being said, we support this, and I am more than happy to answer any questions. Representative Clowney, you're
recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:31:58
You're good at anticipating questions. Can you say a little bit more about what you find faulty about the reasoning in that case and how you see this bill as being a potentially effective challenge to it.
Speaker 186
1:32:09
Sure. Thank you, Representative. So first, actually, it's going to build off what Representative Moore said. There are three members of the Supreme Court currently who were on the court when this decision was written. All three of them were in the dissent, including Alito, who wrote the dissent. None of the members who were in the majority on that opinion are on the court any longer. Much of what the majority focuses on, the majority opinion focuses on, which was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, was not based in the actual is this a cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment,
but much more based on what is seen today, what are the prevailing standards of today, and was based on a survey of what the legislatures had and hadn't done in terms of the death penalty for rape convictions and child rape convictions. There was a case before Kennedy v. Louisiana called Coker, that was 20 or so years prior, that held that the death penalty for an adult rape was unconstitutional.
Many people read that as saying also that a child rape was unconstitutional, and therefore there were legislatures, and there's a lot of this in the dissent, held off uh putting the death penalty in place for for uh child rapes so at the time that this uh case came before the court there were six states that had the death penalty in place roughly i mean the the count was in flux because as we know legislatures are passing things and rescinding things but roughly six and the court felt that that meant that the we were currently
trending away from the death penalty for child rapes and therefore the the standards of our society were such that it was considered a cruel and unusual punishment. That was a major part of the court's reasoning. And we both don't think that it held up at the time, and we think that we're in a different position now to argue that. And so that's a major part of what we think was faulty about the court's reasoning and what we could challenge in a court challenge, if
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:34:19
that answers your question, Representative. Oh, thank you. And I
appreciate why you're pointing out that
only three members of that court are still alive, but I would hope that we don't see Supreme Court decisions as only lasting as long as its members are alive and then we get to look at everything again anew, right? I mean, that's not really the way that it works. I guess if we want to talk about standards of decency, and I don't have the case in front of me, so I apologize, Justin, but But what, I guess we're just seeing, we're certainly seeing a global trend away from the death penalty. I know that the United States is the only civilized country that still uses it.
What do you think specifically has changed in the standards of decency analysis? I know that you said you disagreed with it in the first place, but that seems a different argument than you think things are different now. Can you just articulate why now you think this
Speaker 186
1:35:16
would meet that standards of decency test? Sure, sure, Representative. So first, four of the justices, I should say, including the three that are still on the court, disagreed that our standards of decency were going that way to begin with.
And so currently, how are you looking at standards of decency? One might look at standards of decency as we're trending away from the death penalty. you look at that globally. Another perspective might be the standards of decency includes what are we doing for the victims of these crimes. Standards of decency might be, and this is articulated in the dissent, standards of decency might be that we're providing justice for the individuals who are harmed in such a brutal way such as this. One quote I want to go to is the decision in Coker, which is the case that held the rape of an adult was, you could not have the
death penalty for the rape of an adult, included this quote when saying that it wasn't as bad, so to speak, as a murder or a homicide. Said that for the victim of a rape, life may not be nearly so happy as it was, but it is not beyond repair. And I think that that reflects a really short-sighted view of the harm that someone who goes through something like a rape or child rape is inflicted upon them. And this is, even the decision in Kennedy tries to kind of distinguish away from
this and say that we don't really feel that way. But that goes to our renewed, the understanding that we have of the mental anguish that someone goes through, not only mentally, but physically and emotionally, and everything that goes along with that has only increased from the 80s, has only increased from 2008 going forward. And with that, I think as a society, our opinion of what is just and what is decent, both in the treatment of the individuals who commit these crimes and the victims, I think canon has changed. You need another follow-up real quick? This one will be
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
1:37:16
quick. Yes, that's fine. Thank you. And thank you. I know these are, this is not just one, but two really
hard topics. Obviously, talking about child rape is incredibly hard and sensitive, and talking about using the power of the state to take somebody's life is as well. And so with that, I think I just have one more question, which I think is pretty straightforward. And you may have said this, Representative Moore. I'm sorry if I missed it. Are there other states that do this? And if so, can you tell me how many? Yes. That's correct. Thank you, Representative Clowney. You are right.
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
1:37:49
And this issue should not be taken lightly. It's very serious and weighty. And I take it very seriously myself. Tennessee and Florida have both passed similar statutes in recent sessions. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we
have a couple of individuals who have signed up to speak against the bill. Mr. Parrish, you're recognized to come
in the table. Mr. Rosenzweig, you want to join in? Whichever one wants to go first, if you'll
identify yourself, you'll be recognized to
Speaker 137
1:38:25
make your statement. Jeff Rosenzweig, Arkansas Association of
Speaker 138
1:38:30
Criminal Defense Lawyers. Well, the sponsor and Mr. Bresher do concede that under current U.S. Supreme Court law, this bill is unconstitutional. It may change, it may not. We don't have any way of predicting that, but it is, in fact, unconstitutional as it currently sits. There are several problems with the bill. One is the number of cases of alleged child rape,
most of them come, in terms of numbers, most of them come out of nasty divorces. It is rare to see an allegation where a child is taken into the woods or a field and brutally raped. That's not what the criminal justice system sees. What the criminal justice system sees more often than not is some child is quoted as claiming that father, stepfather,
uncle, or someone did something to them. That is the vast majority of the actual cases that the system sees. Unlike a murder case where you have a dead body, you don't necessarily have any physical evidence in one of these cases. Sometimes you do, sometimes you don't. Hearsay is, child hearsay is permitted, and you can end up with a conviction for this,
despite the fact that the child is not even called as a witness. I could go for hours about how the Arkansas Supreme Court has messed up a number of issues such as access to the counseling records or the therapy records of the alleged victim. I won't get into that. But also, the reality is a lot of these cases are not investigated by law enforcement.
They're investigated by the Child Advocacy Center, who are not law enforcement, or they're investigated by DHS, which is not law enforcement, or investigated by CACD, although part of the state police are not certified law enforcement officers. They're essentially people who were brought over from DHS for the most part. Then you will also have the problem, and Mr. Parrish can talk about this, you're going to need tons more certified criminal defense lawyers, certified in-death cases,
because there will be a huge need, and you're not going to have the people. You're simply not going to have the people with the number of cases that you're going to be facing. And I would suggest very strongly that, you know, this case needs to be sent to interim study, turned down, sent to interim study, or something like that, and we'll see if Mr. Brasher's
Speaker 193
1:41:57
prediction about what the Supreme Court's going to do comes, you know,
Speaker 128
1:42:05
comes true or not. Mr. Parrish, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Greg Parrish, Arkansas Public
Speaker 129
1:42:10
Defender Commission. I won't expand too much further on what Mr. Rosenzweig said, but I'll give you some indications as to the financial impact, and I base this on the numbers from 2023, calendar year, 2024, and these numbers are from the administrative office of the courts. There were 163 capital
felony cases filed, capital murder cases in 23, 176 in 2024, that's statewide, for a total of 339. Death is presumed in a capital case unless and until it is waived by the prosecution. That's by statute 1687-306. The only thing that could prevent it is maybe the defendant is under the age of 18
or some other situation. But if you just take one half of those 339 cases, And I will tell you, we're going to catch 98% of them because no one has six figures to defend a capital murder case. We catch them. But I have to appoint two death-qualified attorneys as long as death is being sought. It's mandatory. I have to appoint an investigator, and I have to appoint a mitigation specialist.
I have to provide for experts. And I will tell you alone right now in the state of Arkansas, I think we have-- and I may be overly conservative-- no more than 40 attorneys statewide qualified to handle a death case. And again, it is presumed until waived. We just recently had a case. It's still ongoing. It is three years old where death was just waived.
I can't tell you the amount of money we spent on that case because we have to, because the federal law says we do. And if we don't, the prosecution will be retrying that case again, maybe not in three years, maybe 8, 10, or 15 years. And I know Jeff has experience on cases that have come back 20 years later. And that is horrendous on everybody, especially the victims.
That's all I have. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, any questions of these two individuals?
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:44:49
Representative Gasway, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I agree with Representative Moore that this is one of the most serious, if maybe not the most serious issue. This committee considers the death penalty and whether or not and how we punish individuals by death in this state. One of the issues, and I think I heard Mr. Rosenzweig
touch on this, is proportionality. And I think I also heard Justin from the Attorney General's office touch on the concept of proportionality. And he referenced a quote from a case where they said in rape that basically there was hope of recovery. Whereas in a murder case, you've taken someone's very existence. You've taken their life. And death is, as far as we know, is an irreversible condition. And so there's this concept of proportionality. It's somewhat
of a philosophical argument, but Mr. Rosenzweig, I'd like you to touch on that in terms of But in a murder case, someone has died, and so a proportional punishment would be the death penalty because you have someone who's died. In these cases, and I'll say, I do think we have to move beyond to some degree what a person deserves, And I'd like to hear you touch on this, too, because a person who's truly committed a child sex offense like this deserves to be Chinese tortured and worse.
I mean, they deserve the worst of the worst punishment we could give them if you want to know about what they deserve. But we
don't always give people what they deserve. And so I'd
Speaker 195
1:46:41
like to hear you talk about, number one, proportionality, and how that
Speaker 138
1:46:46
factors into these decisions. Well, you know, we're getting into all sorts of philosophy here, obviously. But, for instance, look at the murder statutes, the homicide statutes. We know we have different levels of culpability there.
You have capital murder, you know, first degree, second degree, manslaughter, negligent homicide. because the legislature has recognized that not all homicides are the same. The same would obviously be true in this situation, but you're going to have even more so the problem of getting to the truth
in these matters. Representative Moore, Mr. Brasher, quoted Justice Alito. I'm going to quote Justice Scalia in, I believe, Coy v. Iowa, where he said, where he was talking about the confrontation clause to determine if a child has been coached by a malevolent adult. I can guarantee you that is a huge number of these cases that end up in the judicial system,
whether they're found guilty or not guilty or what happens, is cases that obviously they come out of divorces. They come out of broken relationships. There is no requirement of physical evidence. In a murder case, you have a dead body. There is no requirement of physical evidence. And the chances of a bad conviction of an innocent person are so much higher in this area than in almost any other area of the law
because of the lack, oftentimes, of any sort of physical evidence and the questionable circumstances in which a number of these cases arose. Obviously, there are some cases. There are some cases that you clearly have the person, you know, the person has kidnapped the child and taken the child into a field and whatever. That person right now has sent us to life already.
He'll never be out on the street again because he'll never get a commutation, never get clevency. But you're not going to run the risk of that innocent person being sentenced to death. I have a case that I've tried to help on for years where the children were essentially pressured by DHS that their father had raped them.
and it took a year for them to claim it. He was then convicted. I didn't represent him at the trial, but they are now adults, and they came forward and swore in depositions. I, you know, he didn't do anything to us. Follow-up. You recognize we're a follow-up. Thank you, Madam
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:50:11
Chair. And so, you know, again, my question to you was about proportionality and the difference
between, in a murder case, we have someone who's been killed, we have someone who's dead,
someone whose very existence has been taken, and so if one were going to argue for the death penalty, they may say that the death penalty would be a proportional sentence for taking someone's life, because it's essentially equal to the act that they did. But in these cases, no one's life has
been taken, and so there's some argument, and I'm not necessarily making that argument to be clear, but I think the argument is, is that someone didn't die, and so
to put someone to death wouldn't be proportional. Is that fair to say?
Yeah, that would be, yes, that would be
fair to say. I'm sorry I didn't catch what you're saying. But I also want to be clear, in these cases, does a person deserve to be put to death? Yes, probably, and probably worse. In fact, they probably deserve to be Chinese tortured and then put to death. But the point is we have a judicial system, and part of that equation is proportionality, and those are questions that we have to weigh. But what I think I heard you talk about was the risk of wrongful convictions in these types of cases. And correct me if I'm wrong,
but as I recall, and I've prosecuted several of these cases to be clear, I've put people in prison for child rape so nobody knows better than me but the law is that the uncorroborated testimony of a victim or of a person standing alone in these types of cases without any other corroborating evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction. That is correct. And so unlike a murder case where you have to produce the dead body. You have to prove multiple elements. The
uncooperated testimony alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction in which I take it to be your argument that vastly increases the risk for wrongful convictions in these types of cases. Is that your argument? Yes, it is. Okay. It's one of my arguments. All right. And there are others, but But I'll get back in
the queue. Thank you. Representative Beatty, you're
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:52:33
recognized for a question. Just thank you, Madam Chair. My question is for Mr. Rosen-Swag.
A couple times you keep mentioning, as far as most of these cases, something that's coming out of a divorce or parental relation. So my question is, is the violent rape of a child more or less severe perpetrated by a parental unit or some random act of violence? You
Speaker 138
1:53:05
know, that's not the point I was getting at.
Clearly, if it happened, it's severe no matter what happened, no matter who did it. The point that I was trying to make is that these cases, these allegations almost always arise out of a turbulent domestic event. And as Representative Gassaway said, there is no requirement of any proof that anything physical ever happened.
It doesn't necessarily, will not necessarily manifest itself. And there is no requirement that there be any manifestation of it. Unlike a murder case where you have a dead body and the medical examiner said this person was shot or stabbed or whatever happened to him. You don't even have that. You don't even have that here. And that's the problem we have. And the question is, are we going to throw these cases into the death penalty capital murder system?
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:54:30
Do you need a follow-up? Well, I just want to follow up. I mean, I understand, you know, you just said allegations, but, you know, the death penalty is not going to be enforced on an allegation. It's going to be enforced on someone who's been adjudicated and found guilty. So, again, what ifs compared to something
Speaker 138
1:54:56
that's actually gone through the judicial system, been adjudicated by a judge and jury? Well, the problem is that the debt penalty system, of course, has been a startling number of capital cases
where someone has been sentenced to death, have been subsequently, the conviction has been subsequently reversed, the sentence has been subsequently reversed, and a number of states have had a lot of exonerations. We haven't had the number of exonerations here that other states have. I think we should have more than what the courts have given us.
Speaker 203
1:55:45
I don't know if I've answered your questions sufficiently. Just one follow-up. Hurry. Last one. I'll hurry.
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
1:55:53
I got you. So my final question is, would you feel that in your position, death penalty and capital rape as a crime would be a deterrent to someone
Speaker 138
1:56:11
committing this crime? You know, okay, again, the whole question is whether the death penalty is a deterrent at all.
Some people believe it is, some people believe it isn't. For instance, the homicide rate is higher in states that have the death penalty than in states that do not. So the question in murder cases tends to be more what was the level of the offense. In these cases, it's did it happen at all?
I do say it would be a heck of a
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:57:01
deterrent. Is that a question? Representative Caswell, you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So there is the issue of deterrence. That's one of the justifications for why we have the death penalty. And that's a hard, would you agree with me that that is a hard element to capture? It's a hard measure to capture whether or not there's how much the death penalty actually deters any crime.
The social science has a hard time determining that.
Speaker 138
1:57:34
Is that fair? It is because you're getting into all sorts of issues of human psychology, and that's a hard one to answer. Hard
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:57:47
to know how many people didn't do something. It's
Speaker 138
1:57:52
impossible to know, really. The only thing that we have really in this regard is the fact that states that have the death penalty tend to have higher homicide rates.
Now, there's a chicken and egg problem there to some extent, but we don't know. Okay,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:58:14
and then I guess, you know, another point, talk about reporting. So oftentimes these cases rely on people coming forward, and, you know, I've praised the child victims
and their families so many times for having the courage to come forward because it certainly takes tremendous courage for a victim of this type of abuse to come forward and report.
Sometimes it's a family member that will report on a loved one, and that takes also, again, tremendous courage. But if they know the death penalty is
Speaker 138
1:58:59
discourage reporting? It's possible, depending on the particular circumstances of the case. It could, in fact, and you could end up also, you know, particularly of the child who realizes at a certain age that he or she has been coached or wrongfully accused.
If the person is executed, the amount of guilt that person might have or the guilt internally might be, of course, overwhelming, as one might expect. All right. Last point, and then I'm done,
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
1:59:33
Madam Chair. If you don't mind, thank you. Again, does a person who has committed this type of atrocious act deserve the death penalty? In my opinion, they do, and they deserve worse than the death penalty. I think it's, again, more of a philosophical question for this committee as to whether under the circumstances,
given our judicial system and a number of factors, whether or not it would be appropriate. In the past, our judiciary, including the United States Supreme Court, has said that it's not. Is that
Speaker 138
2:00:12
correct? Yes. The Supreme Court held in Coker a number of years ago that it violated the Eighth Amendment with regard to adults and then held, I guess, Kennedy was close to 20 years ago, 17 years ago or so.
you know, that extended that to the child situation. And apparently there is someone's going to try to get a case up there, I guess. That's the tenor that I got from them. We don't know if that's going to happen or what will happen or not because there are members of the Supreme Court who believe in precedent, even if they didn't agree with the original decision.
All right. Fair enough. Thank you. Members, any other questions? Seeing no further
questions, thank you, gentlemen, for being at the end of the table and taking questions. Representative Moore, you're recognized to come
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
2:01:23
and close for your bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I'll make this brief. I'll mention two points that were brought up in testimony. The first was the topic of nasty divorces. I'd like to point out that that's a red herring and this has nothing to do with ambiguous claims. This does have to do with claims that are litigated in court that revolve around what are called aggravating circumstances,
and they are necessary for capital cases. The ones listed in this bill are on pages 12 and 13, and the prosecutor still has to charge the case capital and ask for the death penalty. The second is the quote, you will need a ton more defense lawyers if this bill is passed. I'm just going to be the first to say that cost should not be a concern when it comes to justice. Moreover, the death penalty is waived on 98% of capital cases in Arkansas, roughly.
And there are about three full-blown capital murder trials a year in this state, give or take. In closing, I could tell you about a number of grotesque and purely evil examples of these unfortunate circumstances, but I don't want to be one for performative politics, so I'll just leave you with a quote from Justice Alito's dissent. The rape of any victim inflicts great injury, and some victims are so grievously injured physically or psychologically that life is beyond repair.
The immaturity and vulnerability of a child, both physically and psychologically, adds a devastating dimension to rape that is not present when an adult is raped. Long-term studies show that sexual abuse is grossly intrusive in the lives of children and is harmful to their normal psychological, emotional, and sexual development in ways which no just or humane society can tolerate. From 1976 to 1986, the number of reported cases of child sexual abuse grew from 6,000 to 132,000, an increase of 2,100%.
By 1991, the number of cases totaled 432,000, an increase of another 227%. In 1995, local child protection services agencies identified 126,000 children who were the victims of either substantiated or indicated sexual abuse. Nearly 30% of those child victims were between the ages of 4 and 7. This is a serious issue and it should not be taken lightly.
Having heard all the testimony and read the bill,
with that I would ask for a good vote and I make a motion do
pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. No. The ayes have it. Members, we're now turning. Okay, roll call. Representative Shepard. Representative Shepard.
Speaker 212
2:04:25
Representative Eubanks. Representative Eubanks. Representative Tosh. Yes. Representative Tosh, yes. Representative Gonzalez. Yes. Representative Gonzalez, yes. Representative Gassaway. Representative Gassaway. Representative Crawford. Representative Crawford. Representative Clowney. Representative Clowney, no. Representative Collins. Representative Collins, no. Representative Evans. Representative Evans.
Representative McCullough. Representative McCullough, no. Representative Springer. Representative Springer, no. Representative Beatty. Yes. Representative Beatty, yes. Representative Hudson. Representative Hudson. Yes. Representative Moore? Yes. Representative Moore? Yes. Representative Brown? Aye. Representative Brown? Aye. Representative Unger? Yes. Representative Unger? Yes. Representative Richardson? Yes. Representative Richardson? Yes. Representative Pierce? Yes. Representative
Pierce? Yes. Representative Underwood? Yes. Representative Underwood? Yes.
Chair votes yes. The bill is passed. Members, we're going
to turn to 427. Senate Bill 427.
Senator Bryant, if you'll identify yourself, you're recognized to present Senate Bill 427. Thank you,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:06:15
committee. Thank you, Madam Chair. Joshua Bryant, Senate District 32. Members, if you'll look at your sheet there, there's six bills. They're all related to human trafficking. What I'd like to do is set up the context that will apply to all six of them. In the room, we've got the Attorney General's Office, we've got Prosecutor's Association,
we've got the Division of State Police, which is all members of the Arkansas Human Trafficking Council. To set the context up, in 2002, the state received an F on our human trafficking initiatives through the Shared Hope International scorecard. Upon taking office, Governor Sanders instituted through executive order in Arkansas Human Trafficking Council. And that council had the mission to prevent trafficking, to protect victims, and to prosecute criminals. And what they found is while all of our law enforcement and prosecutors have the mission
to end human trafficking and to help victims, when they work on an island through their individual organizations, there's a lot to be lacking. And so what the partnership did through the Arkansas Human Trafficking Council is they They got the Office of Attorney General, the Department of Human Services, the CID Division of Arkansas State, the Police, and the Department of Public Safety, Department of Human Services, Department of Health, Children's Advocates Centers, representatives from our University
of Arkansas system, health care and mental health professionals, forensic experts, victim service organizations. They basically got a whole bunch of people in the room, and they started to look at how the state was addressing these issues. And so the conclusion or the result is looking at how other states are doing it better than us, how, as these courts were adjudicating the issues, how victims' protective services were treating the victims, it resulted in a package of legislation in order to help increase
how we deal with human trafficking in the state of Arkansas. So just looking at Senate Bill 427, there's three main goals of Senate Bill 427, to strengthen the legal definitions and closing loopholes, meaning that we are going to expand definitions to cover modern forms of prostitution, facilitation, including in digital spaces. We're going to remove outdated language and restructure the offense categories, meaning we're going to take first offenses up, second offenses up, and third offenses up a level.
We're also going to enhance penalties to deter offenders based on severity. And then lastly, we're going to have business accountability and crackdown on illicit operations within businesses. The prior laws did not penalize the businesses directly. That knowingly permitted and facilitated prostitution, and what Senate Bill 427 does is it provides direct liability for business owners and managers with escalating license suspensions and monetary fines for those that permit prostitution on their premises.
So with that, I'd be glad to take questions on Senate Bill
427. Members, any questions? Seeing no questions, we have no one who has signed up to speak for or against the bill. Senator Bryant, you're recognized and closed for Senate Bill 427. I'm closed, Madam Chair. I appreciate a motion. Members, Senator Bryant has closed for his bill with the will of the committee. We have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. say no, the ayes have
it. You've passed Senate Bill 427. Members, let's go to
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:09:57
Senate Bill 428. 428, Joshua Bryant, State Senate District 32. Members, Senate Bill 428. The goal, so currently in statute of limitations for these types of crimes is five years. They toll up until the age of 18 before that clock starts. What this bill will do is match federal law at ten years for the statute of
limitations for victims of human trafficking. So with that, I'll be glad to take any
questions. Members, are there any questions?
Seeing no questions, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the
bill. Senator Bryant, you're recognized to close for your bill. I'm closed, appreciate a motion to do pass. Members, Senator Bryant's closed, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? All in favor
of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it, you have passed Senate
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:10:51
Bill 428. Thank you, committee. Let's move to Senate Bill 429. This is Joshua Bryant, State Senate, District 32. Senate Bill 429 has three purposes.
The first being to mandate no-contact orders in human trafficking cases. The second, to ensure human trafficking victims have specific rights. And the third, to expand criminal record sealing for victims of human trafficking. Looking at the mandatory no-contact orders, current law, the court may issue a no-contact order. The amendment will require courts to mandatorily issue a no-contact order in all cases where a defendant is charged in human trafficking.
I can give examples of that, but we'll look at key provision number two, to expand victims' rights. Basically we're going to define human trafficking offense as a crime under the Human Trafficking Act of 2013. We're going to expand the definition of offense against a minor to include human trafficking crimes where the victim is a minor, and clarify the victim to include human trafficking victims in addition to victims of sex offenses, violent crimes, and crimes against minors. And lastly, the sealing criminal records of trafficking.
We're going to amend the code to allow victims to have their criminal records sealed if they were convicted of prostitution as a result of being trafficked. And so with that, I'm glad to take any questions. Members, any questions? Seeing no questions, we
have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. You're recognized to close for your bill. I'm closed. I appreciate a motion to do pass. Members, Senator Bryant has closed for his bill. What's the will of the committee? We have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye.
Aye. Any opposed, say no. The ayes have it. You've passed Senate Bill 429.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:12:36
Let's go to Senate Bill 430. Senate Bill 430, Joshua
Bryant, Senate District 32. Senate Bill 432 has a purpose to require mandatory restitution for victims of human trafficking. and to amend the Arkansas Crime Victims Reparations Act. What it would do is require any person convicted under human trafficking to provide restitution for its victims, specifically medical and psychological treatment, necessary living costs, legal and court-related expenses,
property damages, relocation expenses, and other losses. There are some eligibility considerations that the victim's return to their home country or absence from the state does not disqualify them from receiving restitution. The amendment to the Arkansas Crime Victims Reparation Act extends the claim filing deadline from one year to five years after the injury or death. With the exceptions, the board may allow late claims for good cause,
And if the victim was a minor at the time of the crime, they have tolling up until
the time that they turn 18. So with that, that
is Senate Bill 430. Members, we have no one who's signed up to speak for or against Senate Bill 430. You're recognized to close for
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:13:53
your bill. I'm closed, committee. I appreciate a motion
to do pass. Members, Senator Bryan is closed for his bill. We have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed, say
no. The ayes have it. You have passed Senate Bill 430.
Let's move to Senate Bill 431. You're recognized. Thank
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:14:14
you, committee. Senate Bill 431, Joshua Bryant, State Senate, District 32. Senate Bill 431 proposes amendments to the Human Trafficking Act of 2013 to include the removal of statute of limitations for certain human trafficking-related offenses and the creation of safe harbors for minors involved in crimes and the prohibition of child sex dolls. So, the elimination of statute of limitations for certain offenses to include sexual extortion, trafficking of persons, patronizing a victim of human trafficking,
and traveling for unlawful sex acts with a minor.
And then the, make sure I'm on the right bill here. I believe Safe Harbors is in a different bill. So I apologize for that. So this bill has two key provisions. One of which I just mentioned, two, removal of statute of limitations. And the second, the prohibition of child sex dolls, making it illegal to possess, transport, distribute, or manufacture child sex dolls.
To define a child sex doll as an anatomically correct doll, mannequin, or robot resembling minors intended for sexual use. And establishes the penalties for such actions. So with that,
I'm glad to take any questions. Members, any questions? Representative Collins,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:15:42
you're recognized for a question. Thank you, Madam Chair. So no statute of limitations. I guess I'm mostly just wondering about this grooming a minor for future sex trafficking. Can you tell me the elements of that?
Because I guess I'm thinking a lot of these are more black and white. They're more distinct. Grooming is, you know, it's a different thing to prove. And so if you're starting this, you know, and the victim is 50 years old and they were 15 at the time this happened, I just want to make sure I understand the elements that they're going to be trying to prove regarding grooming a minor for future sex trafficking.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:16:25
I understood, Representative Collins. All I'd like to do is ask Arkansas State Police, the coordinator of the Human Traffic Scenes Task Force, to join me at the table. If
you'll identify yourself, then you can answer Representative Collins' question. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 229
2:16:57
Excuse me, Sergeant Matt Foster, Arkansas State Police. This bill doesn't change anything with that grooming statute. I can easily look it up real quick in the code book and read to you that grooming statute, but just extending that statute of limitations for that grooming of a minor. And I think I can get on the code book and look it up if you want me to represent it. Well, yeah, mine is not working because of this internet right now,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:17:28
but I think maybe it's a question about, and you're not a prosecutor, but is there any concern about making the case and having the evidence and having the confidence to start a criminal prosecution decades potentially after the alleged events when it's something so indistinct as grooming? And I'm assuming it's indistinct. I don't really remember all the elements of grooming.
But that's why I'm trying to get at what are they, and is there any concern
Speaker 212
2:18:04
about them being indistinct? So to give you the facts of how I would investigate that, I would gather search warrants
Speaker 229
2:18:11
for digital data. So we have retentions through different medias, social media accounts, things like that, cell phones, to where we can go look back, too. But as you know, with those retentions, you lose a lot of your data throughout time, and so then you have to rely on testimony of the victim.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:18:33
Follow-up, please. You're recognized. If I remember right, this committee has looked at removing the statute of limitations for rape over the years and rejected that because of these issues of proof and time elapsing. Do you know if rape is among the crimes for which prosecution may be commenced at any time, or is that off that
Speaker 188
2:19:00
list? That is not on this list, and I was just able
Speaker 229
2:19:04
to pull up the citation 518-1064
grooming of a traffic victim, if you want me to read that real quick. Sure, if you would. A person commits grooming a minor for future sex trafficking if the person only grooms a minor with a purpose to make it more likely that the minor can be enticed or induced into a future sex trafficking act with a person. And then grooming a minor for future sex trafficking is a class B felony. Okay.
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:19:34
And we feel like we can prove that decades later.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:19:42
You'll have to, based on the evidence, so that's what I would say. And Rep. Scala, we have the Prosecutor's Association here. If you think we
need to address the intent at the committee,
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
2:19:58
work together to craft this amendment. I would be interested if a prosecutor representative could speak
to that point. Lori, welcome. You've been here since 10 o'clock this morning.
That's all right. We're with you. If you'll identify yourself for the record, and I think you've heard Representative Collins' inquiry, and
Speaker 240
2:20:21
if you can speak to those. Yes. Madam Chairman, members of the committee, I'm Lori Kempuris. I'm the Deputy Prosecutor Coordinator. And in answer to your question, Representative Collins, any time I think you're getting at the statute of limitations issue and proof, And I know we have now extended it in sexual assault cases, and it's the kind of situation where in some cases it would be very difficult to prove because you wouldn't still have the evidence, but in some cases there might be the evidence.
And so in the past, that was an issue, but those statute limitations have been extended in some cases. And I think, as Matt was saying, that depending on the evidence and the proof that was given for the bribery, if there was sufficient evidence, it would allow prosecution in those cases. So it would give us another tool in the appropriate case.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you for coming to the end of the table.
Any other questions? Seeing no further questions, we have no one who's signed up to speak for or against the bill. Senator Bright, you're
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:21:37
recognized and closed for your bill. I am closed
for this bill. I appreciate a motion. Members, Senator Bright has closed for his bill. We have a motion of due pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion, all in favor of the motion, please say aye. All opposed, say no. The
ayes have it. The motion carries. Senate Bill 431 has passed.
Let's go to Senate Bill 442. Thank you,
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:22:02
committee. Joshua Bryant, State Senate, District 32. Senate Bill 442. Wait a
minute. We have an impact statement. Sorry, Senator. Hang on just one
moment. All right, Senator Bryant, you're now recognized to present Senate Bill,
where are we, Senate Bill 440, thank you.
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:22:50
I turn my page over, 442. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, Senate Bill 442, the bulk of the bill is to address the asset forfeiture for human trafficking cases. In working with the Prosecutor's Association, the Trafficking Council has mirrored the language for the drug forfeiture cases that are handled in the state. This gives a, I believe the testimony was this is the second most profitable crime activity produced in the state, and the ability for them to stop human trafficking rests greatly
on the ability to seize the assets used in the commission of these crimes. It also creates the Arkansas Human Trafficking Council support funds. There are existing funds that were on the books through the Arkansas Human Trafficking Laws of 2013. They were not really used. I think $88 was in one account. This would consolidate and create a new fund for the fines that are applicable to the other cases as well as asset forfeiture to basically be part of, to go into, to continue.
The funding sources for the Arkansas Human Trafficking Council support funds are fines collected from the human trafficking, prostitution convictions, asset forfeitures, legislative appropriations and donations for the permitted uses of housing, advocacy, social and legal services for trafficking victims, grants to non-profits to assist them, training software and law enforcement equipment. Prohibited items being vehicles or emergency equipment. Additionally, Senate Bill 442 creates the crime of harboring an endangered runaway minor.
We did amend it in the Senate to make sure that those showing good cause or good faith to block them from harm are not prosecuted. This is for those intermediaries that hold the victim while waiting on the crime to occur. And lastly, increased financial penalties for human trafficking-related cases and established the Human Trafficking Operations Unit within the Arkansas State Police.
And that is the intent of Senate Bill 442. With that, I'd be
glad to take any questions. Members, any questions? Seeing no questions, we have no one signed up to speak for or against the bill. Senator Bryant, you're recognized
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
2:25:19
to close for your bill. I am closed for
the bill. I appreciate a motion to do pass. Members, we have a motion to do pass on the table. Is there any discussion of the motion? Seeing no discussion of the motion, all in favor of the motion, please say
aye. Aye. Any opposed? Ayes have it. Senate Bill 442 has passed. Senator Bryan, I know you have a couple more, but those were your trafficking bills,
and looking at this, you have members of this committee that are on your next couple of bills, so we're going to take those up Thursday morning. They're going to be here. You won't have to run down. we've got them. So with that, we appreciate you wading through, Senator, for us. Absolutely. Thank you, committee. Senator Collins, do you need to talk with outside of the deal? All right. Members, we're at, I would consider, the witching hour.
We're tired. We've been here. We've done a lot of work today. I would like for us to adjourn if that's not a problem, because here's what we're going to do. Starting off, first thing Thursday morning. If I can get us in here early, we'll come in early. But if not, we're going to start with Representative Gonzalez, Senate Bill 342. We'll start right there at the top, and we're going to work our way down. And you'll be the first one up. None of these bills that I'm aware of have any amendments.
They're coming over from the Senate, so that shouldn't hang us up. We'll just start in on these Senate bills. I've counted them. I think that we can get through them. I've had people text me, tell me how super non-controversial their bills are tonight. I've seen y'all lie to me before. Those
non-controversial bills turn into an hour down the road. No. Yes, representing Clowney. So just to be clear, are we
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
2:27:14
just going to go through in order?
Of the Senate bills, yes. Senate bills, yes. We're going to start on page one, the first bill that we'll have up on
Thursday will be Senate Bill 342, and we'll just go right straight down the row. We have some House bills that were heard, what's today, Tuesday, last Thursday, and it's possible that we could get to those House bills Thursday
after we hear the Senate bills, and if so, we'll take them up. But we're under the gun, and chairs have been instructed to hear Senate bills from here on out the best we can.
And so that's what we're going to do. We've got to take those Senate bills up. If we have any time left over, we'll take up those House bills. But those House bills will not be able to make it through all the way to the Senate. So if anybody's listening that has a House bill that's left on our agenda, you may want to consider putting it into an interim study and handle it that way because the chances of you getting through the Senate are probably going to be very slim. Are there any questions from the committee? Seeing no questions, I do want to say to the committee publicly
how much I appreciate the fact that y'all hang in there. You stay through it, you hang in, you work at it. When you go and run a bill, you come right on back, and I really appreciate the hard work that this committee does and has done. So with
that, let's be adjourned so we'll be rested. And we'll come back Thursday morning. Thank you. We are adjourned.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
Number Sponsor Subtitle
SB302 Gilmore TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF GIFT CARD FRAUD; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB314 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SEXUAL SOLICITATION; AND TO AMEND THE PENALTIES FOR THE OFFENSE OF SEXUAL SOLICITATION.
SB375 Stone TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF CAPITAL RAPE; AND TO AMEND A PORTION OF ARKANSAS CODE WHICH RESULTED FROM INITIATED ACT 3 OF 1936.
SB342 A. Clark TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INJURIES TO CERTAIN ANIMALS BY DOGS TO AUTHORIZE TREBLE DAMAGES.
SB435 Irvin TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AGGRAVATED ASSAULT UPON A HEALTHCARE WORKER; AND TO DEFINE "HEALTHCARE WORKER" REGARDING ASSAULT AND BATTERY.
SB364 Hester TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES RELATED TO CONTRACTORS.
SB313 Irvin CONCERNING FORENSIC MENTAL HEALTH EVALUATIONS AND TREATMENT; AND TO PROMOTE AND IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES AND QUALITY IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES.
SB277 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PERMIT THE FILING OF A NEW UNIFORM PETITION TO SEAL A MISDEMEANOR VIOLATION OF THEFT OF PROPERTY AFTER TEN YEARS HAVE ELAPSED SINCE THE THEFT.
SB457 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RELEASE FROM PAROLE OR POST- RELEASE SUPERVISION OF CERTAIN PERSONS WHO COMMITTED CRIMES WHEN THEY WERE UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN.
HB1178 R. Scott Richardson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CONTRACTING OF A MUNICIPAL ATTORNEY; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING SUMS COLLECTED BY DISTRICT COURTS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COST SHARING FOR DISTRICT COURT EXPENSES.
HB1057 R. Scott Richardson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY CERTAIN PERSONS; AND TO PERMIT THE RESTORATION OF THE RIGHT TO POSSESS A FIREARM TO A NONVIOLENT FELON.
SB325 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989; TO AMEND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING REINSTATEMENT OF PARENTAL RIGHTS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE CHILD MALTREATMENT CENTRAL REGISTRY.
SB326 A. Clark TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989 AND THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; TO MODIFY GUIDELINES FOR A JUDGMENT MADE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF A CHILD; AND TO AMEND PROCEDURES AROUND REPORTING CHILD MALTREATMENT.
SB459 G. Leding TO AMEND THE MINIMUM AGE NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE A JUVENILE DELINQUENT.
SB355 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTING GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS.
SB487 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW ON THE DESTRUCTION OR EXPUNGEMENT OF JUVENILE DELINQUENCY RECORDS.
SB490 Irvin TO ALLOW A COURT TO WAIVE CERTAIN FEES WHEN A JUVENILE IS ORDERED TO REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER.
HB1978 Gazaway TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIP TO THE SEVENTEENTH DISTRICT OF THE STATE DISTRICT COURT SYSTEM.
SB426 Hester TO CREATE THE DEFENSE AGAINST CRIMINAL ILLEGALS ACT; AND TO ESTABLISH ENHANCED PENALTIES FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS WHO COMMIT SERIOUS FELONIES INVOLVING VIOLENCE.
SB427 J. Bryant TO AMEND PROMOTING PROSTITUTION OFFENSES; TO ENHANCE THE PENALTIES FOR PROMOTING PROSTITUTION IN THE FIRST, SECOND, AND THIRD DEGREE; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF PROMOTING PROSTITUTION AT A BUSINESS.
SB428 J. Bryant CONCERNING A CIVIL CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO PROVIDE A STATUTE OF LIMITATION PERIOD OF TEN YEARS FOR A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING.
SB429 J. Bryant TO EXPAND THE SEALING OF CRIMINAL RECORDS FOR VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO PROVIDE THAT VICTIMS OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS; AND TO PROVIDE A MANDATORY NO-CONTACT ORDER IN A HUMAN TRAFFICKING CASE.
SB430 J. Bryant AN ACT TO REQUIRE MANDATORY RESTITUTION TO BE AWARDED TO A VICTIM OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS CRIME VICTIMS REPARATIONS ACT.
SB431 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; TO ELIMINATE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES; TO CREATE SAFE HARBORS FOR VICTIMS; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN SEXUALLY EXPLICIT PRODUCTS THAT RESEMBLE A CHILD.
SB442 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HUMAN TRAFFICKING; TO PROVIDE FOR FORFEITURE OF ASSETS USED TO CONDUCT HUMAN TRAFFICKING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING AN ENDANGERED RUNAWAY CHILD.
SB449 Dees TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR CONFISCATION OF ALTERNATIVE NICOTINE PRODUCTS, VAPOR PRODUCTS, E-LIQUID PRODUCTS, TOBACCO PRODUCTS, AND CIGARETTE PAPERS FROM A MINOR AT A SCHOOL.
SB511 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF AUTOMATED TELLER MACHINE IMPAIRMENT.
SB512 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ROBBERY AND AGGRAVATED ROBBERY.
SB513 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF MAIL THEFT; AND TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THEFT OR UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION OF A MAIL RECEPTACLE KEY OR LOCK.
SB514 B. Johnson TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A SKIMMER; AND TO INCREASE PENALTIES FOR THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF A SKIMMER FOR REPEAT OFFENDERS.
SB537 Gilmore TO CREATE THE EARNING SAFE REENTRY THROUGH WORK ACT; AND TO CREATE A SENTENCE CREDIT PROGRAM FOR A PERSON ON PROBATION, PAROLE, OR POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION TO EARN TIME CREDITS THROUGH EMPLOYMENT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB539 Gilmore TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE LAW REGARDING THE DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION AND THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO CLARIFY REFERENCES TO COMMUNITY CORRECTION CENTERS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1953 Torres TO PROVIDE FOR A SURCHARGE TO BE ASSESSED ON INMATE PHONE CALLS TO OFFSET THE COSTS OF SECURITY NEEDS ASSOCIATED WITH INMATE COMMUNICATIONS.
SB555 J. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF VIDEO VOYEURISM; TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE OFFENSE OF VIDEO VOYEURISM; AND TO MAKE AN ORDER OF PROTECTION AVAILABLE TO A VICTIM OF VIDEO VOYEURISM.
HB1678 Long TO AMEND THE ABORTION-INDUCING DRUGS SAFETY ACT TO INCREASE THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND CLARIFY THE CIVIL PENALTIES.
HB1885 Barnett CONCERNING LAW ENFORCEMENT; AND TO REQUIRE A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER INVOLVED IN A DEADLY USE OF FORCE INCIDENT TO BE PLACED ON TEMPORARY LEAVE AND ATTEND THERAPY.
HB1948 Joey Carr TO AMEND THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH THE OFFENSE OF NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE IS COMMITTED; AND TO REPEAL THE ABILITY OF A PROSECUTING ATTORNEY OR DEFENDANT TO SUBPOENA CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS BEFORE A HEARING OR TRIAL.
SB485 C. Tucker TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENDED IMPOSITION OF A SENTENCE, PROBATION, PAROLE, AND POST- RELEASE SUPERVISION.
SB488 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSIDERED TO BE ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT.
SB575 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSTALLMENT FEES COLLECTED IN CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS; TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DRIVER'S LICENSE REINSTATEMENT FEES; AND TO CREATE THE JUSTICE SYSTEM TASK FORCE.
SB590 Gilmore TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB597 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THREAT OF HARM UPON A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EMPLOYEE.
DEFERRED BILLS
Number Sponsor Subtitle
HB1033 McCullough TO CREATE THE "ARKANSAS RED FLAG LAW"; AND TO CREATE AN EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER AND WARRANT.
HB1141 R. Scott Richardson TO CREATE CRIMINAL OFFENSES RELATED TO DECEPTIVE AND INJURIOUS MEDIA IN THE COURSE OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNS.
HB1136 Achor TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL RECORD SEALING ACT OF 2013; AND TO PROHIBIT A COURT FROM GRANTING A UNIFORM PETITION WHEN A PERSON IS SUBJECT TO AN ACTIVE WARRANT OF ARREST.
HB1430 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991.
HB1431 K. Moore TO AMEND THE DEFINITIONS UNDER THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; AND TO PROHIBIT THE ISSUANCE OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION ENJOINING A PARTY FROM ENGAGING IN COURSE OF CONTROL OR DISTURBING THE PEACE EX PARTE.
HB1481 Long TO CREATE THE ANTI-ATF COMMANDEERING ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT THE PROVISION OF MATERIAL AID AND SUPPORT FOR ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL FIREARMS LAWS.
HB1535 Duffield TO PROVIDE AN ENHANCED SENTENCE FOR PERSONS CONVICTED OF RAPE OF A CHILD TWELVE YEARS OF AGE OR YOUNGER; TO PERMIT THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO ADMINISTER MEDROXYPROGESTERONE ACETATE TREATMENT FOR CHEMICAL CASTRATION.
HB1553 Ray TO REPEAL THE PROHIBITION AGAINST THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION OF NOVELTY LIGHTERS.
HB1655 Long TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HUMAN SMUGGLING; TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF HARBORING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS; AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.
HB1473 Pilkington TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HEALTH-RELATED CASH DISCOUNT CARDS.
HB1676 Womack TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING GARNISHMENT AGAINST THE STATE OR A SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE; AND TO ALLOW FOR INCOME TAX REFUNDS TO BE SUBJECT TO GARNISHMENT BY JUDGMENT CREDITORS.
SB321 J. Bryant TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE STATE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FUND.
HB1823 Duffield TO ESTABLISH THE DISRUPT EXPLICIT FORGED IMAGES AND NONCONSENSUAL EDITS ACT OF 2025; AND TO CLARIFY THE RIGHTS FOR AN INDIVIDUAL AFFECTED BY NONCONSENSUAL ACTIVITIES INVOLVING INTIMATE DIGITAL FORGERIES.
HB1765 Underwood TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING DOMESTIC BATTERING IN THE THIRD DEGREE; AND TO AMEND THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION ENHANCEMENT BASED ON PRIOR ACTS.
HB1871 Gazaway TO REQUIRE A PERIOD OF INCARCERATION FOR DEFENDANTS WHO REPEATEDLY VIOLATE THE TERMS OF THEIR PROBATION OR SUSPENDED SENTENCE.
HB1664 K. Brown TO AMEND "QUINCY'S LAW" CONCERNING PHYSICAL EXAMS AND OTHER TESTING IN AN INVESTIGATION INVOLVING ALLEGED ABUSE UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
HB1306 Furman CONCERNING CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP; AND TO PROVIDE CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR VOLUNTEER SECURITY PERSONNEL IN A CHURCH OR OTHER PLACE OF WORSHIP.
HB1754 Gonzales TO CREATE THE PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT; AND TO PROHIBIT CERTAIN PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS BY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.
HB1663 K. Brown TO PROHIBIT AN AWARD OF ALIMONY OR TERMINATE ALIMONY FOR A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED AN ACT OF CIVIL OR CRIMINAL DOMESTIC ABUSE WHEN THE VICTIM WOULD BE THE PAYOR OF ALIMONY.
HB1947 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA.
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE- HOUSE, Apr 8, 2025 | Agenda | 5 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Representative Carol Dalby Chair
Unverified
Representative R. Scott Richardson
Unverified
Speaker 5
Speaker 21
Speaker 23
Speaker 33
Speaker 37
Daniel Shue
Unverified
Speaker 49
Speaker 45
Speaker 53
Speaker 55
Representative Cindy Crawford
Unverified
Speaker 24
Speaker 58
Representative Justin Gonzales
Unverified
Representative Steve Unger
Unverified
Speaker 68
Representative Jimmy Gazaway
Unverified
Representative Nicole Clowney
Unverified
Representative Dwight Tosh
Unverified
Representative Joy Springer
Unverified
Speaker 91
Representative Howard M. Beaty, Jr.
Unverified
Representative Andrew Collins
Unverified
Speaker 118
Speaker 127
Speaker 128
Speaker 129
Representative Ashley Hudson
Unverified
Speaker 135
Speaker 137
Speaker 138
Speaker 139
Representative Frances Cavenaugh
Unverified
Speaker 145
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 162
Speaker 166
Representative Kendra Moore
Unverified
Speaker 186
Speaker 193
Speaker 195
Speaker 203
Speaker 212
Senator Joshua Bryant
Unverified
Speaker 229
Speaker 188
Speaker 240