Judiciary Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (41)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
HB1778
Act 832
· 9 mentions in transcript, chapter
Matched: “…e numbers? Um 1778. I'm hearing that you want to start with House Bill 1778.”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF STALKING TO INCLUDE PLACING A PERSON … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1778 is now Act 832 |
|
HB1779
Act 833
· 8 mentions in chapter, transcript, agenda
Matched: “HB1779 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO THEFT OF PROPERTY; AND…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO THEFT OF PROPERTY; AND ENHANCE THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION FOR … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1779 is now Act 833 |
|
SB629
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…THE TRANSCRIPT FEES TO WHICH A COURT REPORTER IS ENTITLED. SB629 Caldwell TO ALLOW AN OFFICER OF A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION…”
|
TO ALLOW AN OFFICER OF A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION TO REPRESENT THE CORPORATION IN COURT … | Caldwell | Died in House Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1611
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…AL IMPROVEMENT FUND OR ITS SUCCESSOR FUND OR FUND ACCOUNTS. HB1611 Gonzales TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RE…”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ANIMAL … | Gonzales | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1662
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTI…”
|
TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY. | B. McKenzie | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1692
Act 678
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1692 M. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS AN…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS AND VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS EXAMINERS; AND TO AMEND … | M. Brown | Notification that HB1692 is now Act 678 |
|
HB1717
Act 952
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1717 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN AND TEENS' ONLINE…”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN AND TEENS' ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT. | Gramlich | Notification that HB1717 is now Act 952 |
|
HB1749
Act 680
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1749 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT.”
|
TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1749 is now Act 680 |
|
HB1763
Act 682
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN BEFORE A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION. HB1763 Underwood TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; AND T…”
|
TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL … | Underwood | Notification that HB1763 is now Act 682 |
|
HB1764
Act 831
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EVICE DURING THE COMMISSION OF A HUMAN TRAFFICKING OFFENSE. HB1764 Underwood AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF…”
|
AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION. | Underwood | Notification that HB1764 is now Act 831 |
|
HB1780
Act 684
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…D THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION. HB1780 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RETENTION OF PROPER…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RETENTION OF PROPERTY RELATED TO A FELONY INVESTIGATION. | Gazaway | Notification that HB1780 is now Act 684 |
|
HB1829
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…HE RETENTION OF PROPERTY RELATED TO A FELONY INVESTIGATION. HB1829 Dalby TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; TO PROVIDE F…”
|
TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; TO PROVIDE FOR REMOTE TESTIMONY IN CERTAIN … | Dalby | Recommended for study in the Interim by the … |
|
HB1830
Act 689
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1830 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERA…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE … | M. Shepherd | Notification that HB1830 is now Act 689 |
|
HB1831
Act 690
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…EMENT OF CONTINGENCY FEE CONTRACTS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. HB1831 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF SETTLEME…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. | M. Shepherd | Notification that HB1831 is now Act 690 |
|
HB1848
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1848 Hudson TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS … | Hudson | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1875
Act 841
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IDE OVERSIGHT FOR A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM. HB1875 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF AN IGNITION INT…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE; AND TO PROVIDE … | Tosh | Notification that HB1875 is now Act 841 |
|
SB143
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB143 B. King TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE…”
|
TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE TO COORDINATE WITH LOCAL SHERIFFS AND THE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB144
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB144 B. King CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER…”
|
CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER TO THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO PROVIDE FOR … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB145
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…REATE COUNTY JAIL-STATE INMATE CLOSE-TO- HOME PARTNERSHIPS. SB145 B. King TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS RESULTING FROM LITIGATION INVOLVING THE USE … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB441
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB441 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025.”
|
TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. | Hester | Died on House Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB452
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. SB452 B. King CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR REC…”
|
CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR RECYCLING OF WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB461
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB461”
|
TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS. | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB462
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB462 J. Scott TO CREATE A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYABILITY FOR A PER…”
|
TO CREATE A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYABILITY FOR A PERSON WITH A FELONY CONVICTION; AND TO … | J. Scott | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB472
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “AGENDA (Revised 4/7/25 @ 2:25 PM) Moved SB472 to Deferred Senate Committee on Judiciary Monday, April 7,…”
|
TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION OF AN E-LIQUID PRODUCT OR VAPOR PRODUCT … | Underwood | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB477
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB477 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVI…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. | G. Stubblefield | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB5
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT OR CRIME VICTIMS REPARATIONS BOARD. SB5 B. King TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HA…”
|
TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB501
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB501”
|
TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A LANDLORD TO PROVIDE CERTAIN … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB509
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…D FOR THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE. Page 2 of 3 SB509 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVI…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. | G. Stubblefield | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB548
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB548”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; AND TO REQUIRE THAT NOTICE OF A … | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB549
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…WARRANT BE SENT TO THE PERSON NAMED IN THE ARREST WARRANT. SB549 G. Leding TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A…”
|
TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE … | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB566
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…N AN ACQUITTAL, A DISMISSAL, OR AN ORDER OF NOLLE PROSEQUI. SB566 B. King PROVIDE FOR FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT,…”
|
PROVIDE FOR FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT, OR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE AND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; … | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB581
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; AND TO ADDRESS PRISON OVERCROWDING. SB581 B. King TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE P…”
|
TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB595
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB595 G. Leding TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HI…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN … | G. Leding | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB6
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE. SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. SB4…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB609
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN BEFORE A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION. SB609 J. Scott TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS…”
|
TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB628
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY. SB628 Gilmore TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COURT TRANSCRIPT FEES;…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COURT TRANSCRIPT FEES; AND TO INCREASE THE TRANSCRIPT FEES TO … | Gilmore | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB630
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…NING HEARINGS ON THE REVOCATION OF PROBATION OR SUSPENSION. SB630 B. Davis TO REQUIRE ONLY A COURT TO FIX PUNISHMENT IF A DEF…”
|
TO REQUIRE ONLY A COURT TO FIX PUNISHMENT IF A DEFENDANT IS CHARGED WITH A … | B. Davis | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB631
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER PROCEEDINGS. SB631 B. Davis TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING HEARINGS ON THE R…”
|
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING HEARINGS ON THE REVOCATION OF PROBATION OR SUSPENSION. | B. Davis | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1726
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1726”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT. | Gramlich | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB356
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “SB356 J. Bryant TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBT…”
|
TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE ARKANSAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER … | J. Bryant | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB600
Act 771
· 1 mention in agenda
Matched: “…Matt McKee RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE Number Sponsor Subtitle SB600 C. Tucker TO REGULATE CONTRACTS; TO MANDATE CONTRACTUAL PRO…”
|
TO REGULATE CONTRACTS; TO MANDATE CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN CONTRACTS; AND TO CLARIFY PROPER JURISDICTION … | C. Tucker | Notification that SB600 is now Act 771 |
Machine transcript
May contain errors. Verify important quotations against the official video.
About transcript accuracy
- Source
- SliQ live captions
- Model
- SliQ live ASR
- Processing date
- October 2, 2026
Speaker 5
0:27
table. Wherever you want to go. Sergeant McKee was here. I
Speaker 6
0:41
think he walked in the back. I you. Oh. The chair sees
a quorum. We're calling this meeting to order.
Senator McKee is just outside the door and has already been here.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:04
Senator Caldwell, what's your bill number? Thank you Chairman of the committee, Senate. Senate Bill 629. And
we're going straight to hit one because you're here and 2 because we are under orders to get Senate bills heard first. Thank you. You did identify yourself for
the record, didn't you, Senator Ronald Collo, District 10,
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:30
members of this bill allows members of a LLC or closely held corporation to represent themselves in the event of an eviction only in local court, there's other similar situations of public offenders and things of that nature where attorneys are allowed to represent people in court that are not licensed to practice. but for decades I've been able to represent myself in small
claims court or courts to affected an eviction and the court rulings a few years back. I'm no longer able to do that. It costs a landlord approximately 1800 to $2000 per eviction to get someone out now, and this is a good public policy. I'd appreciate a good vote. Senator Johnson, you
recognize? Did you say due to a court ruling. Several years back, Senator Johnson,
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
2:30
you could have individuals evicted under a criminal statute and no longer can do that and so now you have to hire an attorney go through civil issues and we we've had to come back and define the differences. In in certain squatters and tenants and so we've we've done that, but it's uh it's, it's been a deal for I've been in rental business for 35, 40 years, and I've been able to go and represent myself to have
someone evicted, but I no longer can do that, and again there's several instances public defenders, for instance, the attorneys that work there or the law students that work there are not technically. the attorney in fact and so they are without an exception like this, they are not allowed to represent individuals in court, and so, but this is a closely held situation if I operated as a sole proprietor, I could
represent myself, but since I have selected or elected to form an LLC to help protect me from liability, then I cannot represent myself, and that's all it does. Just let an individual who Who is a member of an LLC or a closely held corporation to be able to represent themselves in the event of eviction only.
Other questions from committee. Senator Caldwell, it is incumbent upon me as chair to be transparent,
not speaking against your bill. Uh, members of the legislative committee of the Bar Association takes me just A short while ago and asked
me to hold this bill. I told Senator Caldwell I would not because we're supposed to get Senate bills out because they have decided they want to come testify against it, so I wanted to let you all know that as
your, uh, making a decision, so we're not doing this in secret or Uh, but like I said, he filed a bill on Friday and they texted me in
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
4:44
the last 15 minutes, and Senator Clark, I want to do say that that Representative Day and I have worked on this bill for months before the session started, and we've made several adjustments, and it wasn't that I waited till the last minute to do this. It's the fact that Bill our staff has gotten so far behind we've asked this bill to be drafted about 6 weeks ago,
and they just got it out. No, and I, and again, I'm not speaking against you in any way.
I just don't want somebody to come back and say the committee didn't know. I understand. Question, other questions
for Senator Caldwell. Here are none. We don't have anybody here to speak against or for Senator Caldwell, you're recognized close for your bill. I'm close to
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
5:30
a bill and I would appreciate a very good vote. Thank you. Motion to pass from
Senator Stopfield, 2 from Senator Ross. Any discussion. He
none all for the. Motion signified by saying all I, Motion signified by saying all all against. motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Cawe you have passed your bill. OK, yes, Senator Gilmore was called away on a personal Emergency may have been a sign.
Prosecutors' bills weren't supposed to be heard today. Uh, just giving my friends good ribbing. Uh, yes, Senator McKee, if you are ready. What are the numbers? Um 1778. I'm hearing that you want to start with House Bill 1778.
We are in a unique position where we have to have every vote, even the chair. Senator McKee, if you and your guests would identify yourself for the record, please. Senator Matt McKee, Senate District 6.
Speaker 53
7:37
You want to have these folks recognize themselves as that's our setting there.
Speaker 55
7:44
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I'm Laurie Campuris. I'm the deputy prosecutor
Speaker 56
7:51
coordinator. Tom Tatum, prosecuting attorney, 15th District. Sertra
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
7:56
McKee, you are recognized to present House Bill 1778. Mr. Chair, if it's OK with you, I'd like to make a motion that we add Senator Gilmore as the Senate sponsor on this bill.
Got a motion in a second, any discussion?
Hearing none offer the motion signified with saying aye, the bill has been amended to having a Senator Gilmore is the Senate sponsor. You may present House Bill 1778 as amended, Senator
Speaker 55
8:32
McGee. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, this bill makes an amendment to our current stalking statute, um, what this does is add in, um, conduct to
571229, which is our stalking statute. It adds to stalking in the 2nd degree that placing a person in imminent fear of unwanted sexual activity, which is trying to turn the page. Sorry about that. Uh, sexual intercourse or deviant sexual activity or other sexual contact, um, to either that person or a member of their family or household member would be considered stalking and under
stalking you have to have a course of conduct, so it has to occur more than one time. It's not just a one-time threat of that kind of activity. We've actually had cases where somebody text messages to a person and with pictures and threatens to sexually assault their children. That's kind of what's behind this. So, um, rather than trying to charge it as terroristic act
or terroristic threatening, which sometimes can be more difficult because of case law. It was suggested that we add it to the stalking
Speaker 65
9:54
2nd degree, and so that's what this bill does. Questions from committee. Senator Stubblefield. Yeah, on
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
10:14
the, on the circumstances that you've got
listed here as far as being Um Identified as a stalker.com a person commits stalking in the 2nd grave, he or she know only engages in the course of conduct that harasses another person and makes a terroristic threat. With the purpose of This seemed
like it would fit a lot of situations. Where a person wasn't really stalking, that was just.
You know, had the intent of Of aggravating or
Speaker 55
10:54
Well, I believe in order for it to fit, they would, they would have to harass by sending repeated messages. That's where you get the harassment and in the course of that, the threat would be instead of let's say to physically abuse a child, they're going to threaten to sexually assault either the person or the child or a family or household member. So you have to have both. It's the threat of committing that abuse and the
harassment, which means they have to, that has to happen several times. Um, and course of conduct is a pattern of behavior that consists of at least 2 or more acts separated by 36 hours, so it, it has to fit
Speaker 75
11:35
within the stocking guidelines and ramifications in order for it to fall under the stalking
Speaker 55
11:42
statute. It couldn't just be sending Text messages with sexual innuendo, it would have to actually be a threat to sexually
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
11:52
assault or abuse a person that would be covered under this. So this would be somebody, maybe a child word against someone else's work
Speaker 55
12:04
if they didn't have it on social media. Well, I believe, yes, that could happen, but I think in those cases you wouldn't see those charged because the prosecutor would have to have evidence of the, of that kind of behavior in order to prove that stalking had occurred and in the specific case that was mentioned, there were text messages, but it was
text messages, not a physical violence or harm towards the person's child, but of sexual activity towards the child if you've got text
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
12:31
messages. That's evidence. I mean, I can understand that easily. That's what we would have to have, I think,
Speaker 55
12:37
in order to charge under this provision. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Other
questions from committee, Ms. Concuras, Mr. Tale, is this in any particular section of the law?
Speaker 80
12:56
Is it any, it's uh would be amending 5.
71 to 29 but this is just stalking. It's not. It's not in any particular situation.
Speaker 80
13:12
Stalking in general. Well, it's stalking in the 2nd degree, not the first degree, and
Speaker 55
13:18
again, the situation that led to this was a case involving someone who was getting text
messages threatening to harm or sexually abused their children. Sure, and I understand what you're trying to do, but let me
ask you about this scenario. Somebody continually calls and texts and says you owe me money. Uh, at work, at night, and then, and in one of those texts, so if you don't
pay me, I'm going to beat your rear end, uh, how does that fit that does does not fit this
Speaker 55
13:54
definition. Well, that would be under the current stalking statute and
depending on the timing of those threats. And the harassment it could possibly fit within the regular stalking statute. This just add adds an additional way to commit stalking. In other words, if your threat was separated by 36 hours from the text messages, 2 or more acts. Stalking's a little hard to prove sometimes because of that time frame, but if you have two or more acts separated by 36 hours that occur within a year's time, that falls within the
course of conduct language of the stalking statute. So in your scenario that you described, if that threat And the harassment fit within the course of conduct, then it potentially could be stalking, but it
Speaker 75
14:42
may not be depending on the timing of the conduct.
OK, so even under cart law, if somebody was
owed money and thought particularly that they'd been wronged or scammed, uh, if they
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
15:00
were persistent enough, it could be considered stalking. Yes sir. Thank you. Other questions from committee? See none. no one
here to testify for or against. Senator McKee, you are recognized to close for your bill. We're closed. We'd appreciate a good vote and I make a motion to pass. If a motion do pass second from. As amended motion to pass as
amended 2nd from enator Johnson, any discussion? Very no none all for the motion signified by saying I I all post. Congratulations, Mr McKee. pass Very no none all for the motion signified by saying I I all post. Congratulations, Mr McKee. You passed House Bill 1778. You're going to present House Bill 1779. With your
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
15:52
permission, sir. You are recognized to present House Bill 1779. Matt McKee, State Senate District 6. And would you like to
Daniel Sho
Unverified
16:02
Introduce yourself. My name is Daniel Sho. I'm the elected prosecuting attorney for Sebastian County, 12th Judicial District, and I am the president
Speaker 56
16:13
of Arkansas Prosecuting Attorneys Association. present Tom Tatum,
prosecuting attorney, 15th District. Sir McKee, you are recognized present House Bill 1779.
Daniel Sho
Unverified
16:23
If I may speak, Mr. Chairman, yes. Um, what this bill does is it changes the in essence, the
porch pirate bill that had been passed in 2021, uh, from a D felony to a C felony. What we've been seeing, if you, you know, if you want to Google Porch pirate, Arkansas. You'll see a number of cases all across the state from from Jonesboro to Fort Smith, Hot Springs, Logan County, um, it's, it's easy to find these cases because they they keep occurring, but obviously we we don't want them to occur. Some crimes are what
we call general deterrence crimes. We want to try to stop them before they ever occur. Police have come to me a couple of times thinking about ideas of just basically, you know, putting a a dummy box on somebody's porch and watching neighborhoods that are being heavily hit by this activity. The problem is that that would be an attempted theft, and the attempted theft as a D felony
becomes an a misdemeanor and law enforcement does not want to use their resources to arrest somebody for a mist. demeanor, so the natural thing is if you make it a sea felony, then the attempt becomes a def felony, and for stealing a iPhone box with a brick in it suddenly becomes a case that police can do a sting operation, use a bait box on somebody's
door. Watch it, and when the porch pirate comes up and takes it, it's really an attempted theft. It's not a true theft. But it's an attempted theft, and by doing that they can in essence let neighbors know, hey, whether it's, you know, South Sebastian County or whether it's the city of Fort Smith, you need to stay out of these sections of, you know, Sebastian County or these sections of the state, and again this is supported by the Arkansas Sheriff's Association and the Association
of Chiefs of Police. I'd be happy to answer any questions, questions
from committee, Senator Tucker, and Senator Stubblefield. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
18:46
There's no dollar value in this crime for the property stolen, correct? That is correct. That is correct. So if we
move it to a class C felony, Conceivably you could steal an item with nominal value, less than $1 right, left
on somebody's porch, you could, you could be sentenced to prison for
Daniel Sho
Unverified
19:06
up to 10 years for that hypothetically, well, I mean, under the um under the sentencing guidelines see felony theft and a de-felony theft is precious little difference. They're both alternative sanctions, which is usually probation or suspended sentence. I would be very very surprised to see many porch pirates in the penitentiary at this time. Is there anything in the law that
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
19:32
prohibits us from setting the penalty for an
attempted crime at the same level as the commission of the crime. That prohibits that, no. Why don't we just make attempted theft along these
Daniel Sho
Unverified
19:50
lines of Class D felony and not have it be one notch below the commission of the crime the crime example that was a bill y'all just passed with the fentanyl, the delivery of fentanyl or death by delivery on fentanyl is those were unclassified. I recall and and I mean that's just our statutory scheme.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
20:08
But we could if we wanted. Pass a law that says for this crime
choose crime X. Call it murder for the sake of the conversation. We could classify the penalty for attempted
Daniel Sho
Unverified
20:21
murder to be the same as for the commission of murder, but it would be totally inconsistent with the way that the Arkansas Criminal Code, which, you know, started out in 1977, does it. The attempts, the solicitations, the conspiracies are all one notch below. Could you do that? Theoretically I think you could.
Would it fit the statutory scheme, it would not. Thank you. Thank
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
20:49
Chair. Yes, sir. Other questions from committee such as Stofield. Then, and I know this is probably well, of course, but This to me
Daniel Sho
Unverified
21:01
looks like it's akin to almost entrapment. No, we've had that discussion on a different sexual solicitation
issue. This will be attempt and they're going to have to wait till they go to the porch and get it and take it away. You are not enticing people I doubt sincerely, Senator Sovifield, if you and I saw a package on somebody's porch, we would think about going up there and stealing it. No, and you know,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
21:29
Dan. 30 years ago, they wouldn't have thought of going up there and stealing it either. It's what it seemed like, it seems like the more technological we become and
the more advanced we become with all these new uh conveniences we have like delivering your food, delivering every package. We're, it's almost like we're tempting society, the worst out of society, and I'm not, I'm not taking up for these people. Don't get me wrong, because they're wrong, right. Right, I mean it just seems like the more of this, and I wonder how much, how many more prisons we're gonna have to build to hold every one of these people.
Because at the rate we have enhanced. Penalties on, on a crimes in the last 3 sessions I've been here. And I've been hearing a lot more than that. Uh The numbers are going to have in, in another two sessions, we're gonna have numbers that That are serving in jail that are, I mean,
phenomenal. And I'm not like, like I say, I'm, I'm a big
law. I'm for law and order. I really believe that, but I don't know what the answer to this is, but if we keep
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
22:54
going down this road, We're gonna have half the population in jails. Senatorville, I think specifically and I appreciate your question, your concern there. I think you mentioned though that the the possibilities of these porch pirates ending
Daniel Sho
Unverified
23:06
up in jail are very unlikely. It's alternative sanctions authorized. It's below the line and hypothetically if you gave them 10 years on a sea
felony, you're eligible for parole in 180 days. 180 days. Hypothetically. I mean this is something that you would take this person and put them on probation, try to get them turned around where they get a job and they don't ever do this again. I mean, again, you talk about entrapment a clean record,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
23:34
squeaky clean record. Never committed a crime. They still get 180 days. No, I mean that what would they get?
Daniel Sho
Unverified
23:48
In that scenario that's going to be a probation case. So they would be out on probation. Absolutely. With no funds generally there's going to
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
24:11
be Probably a $1500 fine, Sebastian. That's all I, Mr. Chair. Monsie I support your bill. Uh, do you happen to know just for reference, is Oklahoma increased
their penalty for the porch pirate deal. Do you know? I do not know that, Senator. I was wondering if ours is new.
We just got I just want to cross the line if they if that state had done something that helped theirs that we could
Daniel Sho
Unverified
24:34
see. I cannot speak to that. I cannot speak to that, but I know law enforcement has come to me and a lot of times what they're doing is they'll they'll, they can check and see when the iPhones are going to be delivered and they'll they'll pounce on those
neighborhoods and then they'll do a sweep. They'll go through the entire neighborhood. So if you could time it right and set your your your bait there, catch them and stop them. That stops them from preying on, you know, if it's happening and hack it or If it's happening in Fort Smith or if it's happening in Greenwood, it's kind of a general deterrence tool for law enforcement. I believe we do have some of them
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
25:12
coming over from there on our side, the, the last time the Southwest Times
Daniel Sho
Unverified
25:21
Record did a survey of the felony cases that we filed 37% were from Oklahoma. Thank you. Yes, sir. Other questions from committee, Mr. Chair, I
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
25:32
don't know if this is the appropriate time. I apologize. I should have done this at the very beginning, but we do at some point need I would move to add Senator Gilmore as Senate sponsor of this bill. Senator
McKee has made a motion. Senator Tucker has seconded to make Senator Gilmore, the Senate
sponsor of House Bill 1779 and discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying I opposed. We have amended House Bill 1779 to make Senator Gilmore the sponsor. Any other questions from the committee about the bill. Caring none, there's no one to
testify for or against. Sutra McKee, would you like to close for your bill? Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
26:19
I'm closed. I make a motion for due pass as amended. Appreciate a good vote.
Motion from Central McKee, 2 from Center Ross, any discussion? Hearing none all for the motion signified by saying I all opposed at this time, Ser McKee, your bill fails. There's only 4 votes. You want to present House Bill 1780. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Looks like this one has Senator Gilmore's a, we're ahead of the game on this one. You want to present this one? OK,
Speaker 56
27:12
come down right there is fine. Recognize yourself, Senator McKee. You are recognized to present House Bill 1780. Uh, Tom Titan, prosecuting attorney, 15th District.
Chair
Unverified
27:18
Uh, this is, this is, as you can see, this is a pretty short bill, uh, what it does is it provides uh a procedure to return property to individuals that was seized as
part of a criminal investigation, but either, either the crime is not going to be charged or or the court is authorizing the return of the property. And I'd
Speaker 136
27:41
be happy to answer any questions on it.
Chair
Unverified
27:52
And if the committee wants a little background, kind of uh previously uh prosecutors when
this situation came up, we would go seek an order from the court and return the property to an individual that was requesting their property back, uh, there's been an attorney General's opinion, uh, stating that that that's not authorized by the statute that requires us to retain items seized by law enforcement. And so we have no method to return this property to individuals that's not part of an investigation or it's part of a closed investigation.
If, if that, if that makes sense.
I'm listening. Uh, so there's no method to return it. Is that what you said? That's correct. I believe that uh, I've never had anything returned to me that
uh that was stolen identified it, and of course they held it for the case and uh somehow I never heard
Chair
Unverified
28:55
about it again. Well, that, that's what this is hopefully to provide an avenue
and I mean I can give you like an example from, from my jurisdiction where, uh, we had a homicide investigation. A guy was having friends over, uh, one of the guests, they get in a dispute over a woman shoots the other guest. He's, he's there with uh the homeowner who's not involved in the altercation has a 22 pistol on his side. Law enforcement. They take every gun. They're sent to the crime lab, all that gun of the homeowner is not
involved in the case anyway, but I, I'm not allowed to return that firearm and and on a on a murder charge, that would be for forever, but this statute would allow me to go to the court and say, hey, this, this was not involved in this case. It has no relevance whatsoever. I would like to return it to the original property owner. OK. Or I don't know that this goes far enough, but
it seems like certainly that ought to be on our agenda somewhere as we're
returning people's property to do people have to request their property
Chair
Unverified
30:11
back? Uh, uh, yes, Your Honor, I mean, if, if If they're, I didn't even really think of that process, but I wanted to have in the situations I'm talking about, these people have contacted my office saying, hey, I want my property and I've had to tell them, hey, there's not a, there's not a way for me to to give that to you in this situation. And so I'm hopeful this will allow this, so I can obtain the
order and return the property, plus we really don't have a place to store all this stuff anyway. I mean, for a, I'm in a rural district. I mean, it's uh we would, we would love to get rid of this property. I think you've
identified a bigger problem because I have to tell you I was, I have been negligent in more than one case and asking for
my property back because I thought when we reported the theft, they brought the property to me and said, Is this yours? And I said yes, I didn't know that I then had to go to them and say, hey,
When you're done, I'd lock my stuff back. Uh, I don't think that anybody thinks I've got to ask for my stuff back. Uh, especially when law enforcement and prosecutors have it.
Chair
Unverified
31:25
I, I, I agree with you. I, I, I, I would be fine with it being automatically returned, but I'd love to see that a little bit more resistance than I was expecting to be quite honest with you, I'd love to see that.
The, um, Other questions from committee. See none. There's no one to. Uh testify for or against Senator McKee. You are recognized to close for House
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
31:57
Bill 1780. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're closed. appreciate a good vote. I make a motion do pass motion to do pass
from Senator McKee, uh, 2 from Senator Tucker. Any discussion?
There are none, all for the motion
signified by saying aye, all opposed. Congratulations, Central McKee, you have passed House Bill 1780. Mr. Chair, with your
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
32:23
permission, I've also got 1830 and 31 for Senator Gilmore if That's OK. Uh House Bill 1830 Centra McKee, you
are recognized to present it. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to bring the Attorney
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
32:43
General's office to the table and let
Speaker 150
32:49
her introduce herself. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Alex
Betton with the AG's office. C McKee, you are recognized
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
33:01
to present House Bill 1830. Thank you committee. This House Bill 1830 is a very simple bill. all it
Speaker 153
33:07
is doing is repealing a small section of the code as it pertains to the Attorney
General's ability to or how they calculate, how we calculate our outside council fees, and much of, of what our office does with enforcement results in civil penalties when reduced to a judgment. Um, and we have often In some of the cases that you've seen in the news, we've hired outside counsel to To provide a service to the taxpayers really in complex litigation that may exceed some of the capabilities of our office, and we do so because the
outside council also fronts all of the upfront costs, um, in these lawsuits at no cost to the taxpayer. They can only recover some of those upfront costs if they are successful in the lawsuit. So it's a typical contingency fee that you would see, um, just Like in private practice. Uh, the difference here is that, like I said, when we bring lawsuits, they are often under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the only thing that we can recover under
that, that act, the ADTPA are civil penalties. Um, so that has become a problem when we've hired outside counsel to bring forth cases. Um, we bring a litany of causes of action, and then currently we've had a judge that has thrown out a couple of our causes of actions. And the only thing that remains are civil penalty recoverable causes of action underneath the ADTPA. So our, our office is, is asking this committee to repeal this section so that when we're
calculating how we are paying outside counsel, we can use the civil penalties. Um, so we're not increasing uh the percentages that outside counsel can recover, we are not seeking for any funds um from the general revenue or any other revenue. This is only going to be an eat what you kill scenario, where the lawyers are only paid if they are successful, they're paid a percentage, and to be able to calculate those civil penalties subject to your questions.
Questions from committee. Look at that. Hearing none. Uh, no one here
to speak for or against. Senator McKee, you are ready to, you are recognized to control. You are recognized to Close. It's been
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
35:57
a long day for House Bill 1830. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm closed. Appreciate a good vote. I'll make a motion
for due pass. I have a motion to pass.
2nd from Center Stubblefield. Any discussion Hearing none, all for the motion is signified by saying ah I Hearing none, all for the motion is
signified by saying ahposed motion carried. Congratulations, Senator McKee passed Senator Gilmore's bill. What's next, 1831. Senator McKee, you are recognized to
present House Bill 1831. Thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill
Speaker 153
36:35
1831 is also dealing with civil penalties, so I won't belabor the point and and re-explain all of that, but the The issue that we have run into is that the law very explicitly states how we can spend settlement funds, um, but it does not talk about civil penalties. So if we settle a case and we don't take it to a judgment, then the AG's office can use those settlement funds as prescribed by law, but the law has never expressly, expressly talked about how we
are to treat civil penalties. Um so former practice of, of many former AGs has been to treat civil penalties the same way as settlement funds. We have not touched these civil penalties since Tim has taken office because we saw that in the law it was not an express grant of authority to spend these funds the same way as they have always been. Um, so we have proactively come to to seek to ask your permission um again, settlement funds can be unrestricted
settlement funds, we may use, but we must quarterly report them to ALC and this would be treated. the same way as that ALC would get a report from us on a quarterly basis. JBC gets the quarterly report from us during session, um, and this is just clarifying those ambiguities in the law that allow us to spend those the same way we would settlement funds. Again, no hit to general revenue, no hit to RSA, not asking for any funds. This is again just spending what we are recovering on behalf of
the state, either in restitution or in grants, um, just like a normal settlement funds, subject to your
Speaker 66
38:16
questions. Questions from committee. Yeah Center
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
38:20
Stubblefield, is there a dollar amount to these grants.
Speaker 153
38:27
So the AG's office has restricted and unrestricted grants that that he can give from settlement funds, um, for instance, one of the larger ones has been from the opioid settlement funds. He's given
grants to say, Arkansas Children's Hospital for the opioid Research Center. There have been other grants, um, that the AG has given from unrestricted settlement funds, uh, let's say to the drug courts, there has been some money that has been given to AOC, um, to, to help offset some of the unfunded drug courts, but there is no express. Minimum or maximum for AG grants that are given, it's just a coffers, and we also have a
certain cap on settlement spending, which is in our appropriations that was set also by the General Assembly. So there is a cap on how much we can
Speaker 164
39:18
spend on an annual basis. Do you have a list of, of people that Good qualify for these grants that
Speaker 153
39:25
can apply for these grants. There is no There is no process other than to write a letter to to the office and to and to seek any grants, um, and I can provide you with a list of people that have been given a grant since Tim has taken office. That's
something that we report quarterly as well to the
ALC. I of. Other questions from committee. And tell me again exactly what
Speaker 157
40:08
this bill is changing. Yes, Mr. Chair, this bill
Speaker 153
40:13
explicitly says that civil penalties may be used the same way as settlement funds. So when we receive funds in lawsuits, either were successful in the lawsuit because it goes to a judgment, and those are civil penalties or we settle it absent a judgment. The law as it's currently written, just does not provide for us receiving funds from civil penalties from an actual judgment, and it's been understood. that the use of settlement funds is how we treat civil penalties, but the law just has not
expressly said that, and in the abundance of caution we are seeking to have that clarity for the law to conform with prior practice.
OK, so you are Changing the law to fit practice. Is that
Speaker 153
41:00
correct? Yes, sir. Well, prior practice. Tim, Tim, excuse me, General Griffin has not expended any civil penalties since coming into office. They have been separated into separate accounts, and we have not touched them, but prior
practice up till now. Yes, sir. OK. Other questions from committee. Hearing none, there's no one here to testify for or against Senator McKee. You are recognized to close
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
41:28
for the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm closed for the bill. Appreciate a good vote. Make a motion
to do pass. Motion to pass Central McKee,
2nd center Ross. Discussion. Caring none, all for the motion
signify the same ah all opposed. Congratulations, Centra McKee, you have passed House Bill 1831. What's that? Uh,
yes, we're going to Senator Tucker's got a Senate bill we're going to hear first.
1830 Senator Tucker, you're recognized. What's the bill number?
Senate Bill 600. 6 Senate Bill 600, which has an amendment. Yes sir, would you identify yourself for the record,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
42:38
please, Clark Tucker State Senate District 14. And would you explain them amendment for us. Yes, Mr. Chair, members, last week we
passed out Senate Bill 600. If you recall, this was the bill. Where A resident of Arkansas who purchases a piece of real property or a mobile home that, uh, that's worth less than $100,000 in a lawsuit than Arkansas law governs the transaction in any litigation pertaining to that contract is subject to the jurisdiction of this state. A concern was brought to my attention that sometimes people buy mobile homes in Arkansas and then transport them to other states and and so this amendment
accommodates that concern. It's an agreed upon amendment with the lenders who brought this to my attention and Senator Rice, Senator Rice's attention as well. So all this does is Uh, it adds the word in Arkansas to line 34 of of page one of the bill. So now the purchase has to take place in Arkansas and the dwelling unit has to be in Arkansas in order for the terms of this bill to apply, as I said, it's It's, it's, I think we need to suspend them. We may need this,
is this on the agenda, Colby? OK, because I, OK, we passed it out, the amendment was engrossed. I re-refered it to committee on the floor today for us to hopefully adopt this amendment and repass it back out, so that's where we are. We
have a motion to adopt from Senator Des from Senator Tucker. Any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion sign saying a. The amendment has
been adopted. Would you like to close for your bill? I believe I'm closed, Mr.
Chair. I appreciate a good vote. I move to pass. Dust from Tucker. 2 from Senator Ds, any discussion, hearing none, as amended, all for the motion signified by saying aye. Senate Bill 600 has passed. As amended The, uh, Y'all will have to let me know how long you want to go because I'm here all night, but we've got several people here to run bills. Who's next in line?
Unknown speaker
44:53
You know, who's been here the longest. Central Petty. Central Petty, what bill number? HB 1692. be 1692.
OK, Central Petty, if you and those with you will identify themselves for
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
45:33
the record. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jim Petty, state senator, District
Speaker 187
45:36
29. As Chairman Matt Brown, State Representative District
55. Captain Dustin Morgan State Police. Right. So Petty, you're recognized to present a house and Representative Brown to present
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
45:50
House Bill 1692. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have fortunately been here long enough and attempted this in a couple of meetings that we,
Mr. Representative Brown and I are both here and I'm going to let him speak if he'd like to. If not, I'm prepared to speak on this.
Speaker 194
46:10
Uh yeah, that's fine. OK, you're talking,
Speaker 195
46:12
yeah, thank you, Senator Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is one of the package of a dozen or so bills the state police have brought to us this legislative session. This section makes some changes to our uh uh private investigator law and polygraph licensing law, the first big change, which is
actually a majority of the bill. Is it removes the phrase moral turpitude from the existing bill or existing statutes, and the reason for that is this legislature, I think it was in 2019 past 17-3-1. To which essentially provides that licensing decisions cannot be made based on vague terms like moral turpitude. So essentially it wants us to get rid of rid of, get it out of our code in this section does that. The second thing this bill does is it clarifies on the there is
an exception to the requirement to have a private investigator license, which is if you are a person that installs a home security system on behalf of a security company. You actually work for the security company and you install their own system. You have an exception that you don't have to be licensed as a private investigator, but you do need to be able to pass the background check. Uh, this simply clarifies that if you fail that background check such that you would not qualify for the license, you no longer qualify for the exemption either. The um Next thing the bill does is it requires, there's a little bit
of a discrepancy, I think, between our statute and state police rules regarding the refresher training for a commissioned security officer. This bill
Speaker 194
47:38
clarifies that it's a two-year, I think a license lasts for 2 years, is that right, Captain Morgan? it clarifies that within
Speaker 195
47:45
that 2 years, every year there's a refresher training. So you get, you get license, you have training, then you're up for renewal of your license, so on and so forth. And it brings uh a parity between existing state police rules and our statute. And then finally, the bill provides that under current
law when you become a commissioned private security officer under the old system, the state police would process your background check if you pass that background check, they then send notice to your local law enforcement agency who then have 30 days to be able to veto the application in practice, what the state police has found was that the very few applications that they ever received a veto on were for reasons that were already in the background check that the state police. looked at determined was not a disqualifying factor and so this bill would remove that because
in practice it has become an additional 30 day delay of people being able to get licenses when they need to get them now. I think this, this provision probably made a lot of sense back before computer records were all electronic, but now that everything's electronic, they're finding these convictions and so that's no longer really an issue, and we'd be glad to answer any
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
48:54
questions that QD may have. rice. When you all tell me, you mentioned the refresher training on page 37 E2, what, what does it refresher training consist of?
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
49:09
Senator Rice, uh, it's different for armed and unarmed security officers, unarmed are required 6 hours every year for refresher training commissioned security officers that are armed are required 12 hours and commissioned school security officers are required 24 hours. Obviously the most stringent that would require Active shooter training, stop the bleed, various other things
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
49:39
that would be pertinent to an officer that's present in schools. Would this be something that I probably get paid for and hardly was in there. possession I'm sorry, Senator Rice, could you repeat that? Is this something I probably would get paid
for in their position. For their hours spent most generally, yes. Yeah, I would think so. Thank you. Other questions from committee. Say none.
Uh, no one here to speak for or against. Uh representative. Brown, would you like to, and Central Petty, would you like to close for House Bill 1692.
We're closed, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate a good vote. Will of the committee. Motion to pass from Senator Tucker, 2nd from Center Ross. Any discussion Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye, all opposed ocean carry, congratulations, Senator Petty.
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
50:44
Representative Brown, you have passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you,
committee. Good luck the rest of the night. Thank you. Who's next? 1717. Thank you for wishing us good luck for the rest
of the night. Sir Petty, I can't help but notice that uh Senator Gilmore and the prosecutors who insisted that I be here
Speaker 203
51:10
are not here, so look at it but I, I watched the
Speaker 42
51:14
other two walk out of the room though. They're not
Speaker 207
51:26
sharing my pain. I Sure. Representative, would you identify yourself for the record? Gramlich, state representative District
50 Fort Smith and which bill is it House Bill 1717. It's on deferred asked to take it off a while back and I
guess that just didn't Grahamli says he asked for it to be taken off deferred
some time ago. It was not. We need a motion to take it off of deferred list to hear at center Des makes a motion. Second from Senator McKee, and the discussion. What Senator Dee's motion was to suspend the rules and take it off the deferred list Senator McKee also second that any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signified with saying aye I post. All right, Representative
Grandma, you you are recognized to present House
Speaker 212
52:19
Bill 1717. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, committee, for your time today. House Bill 1717 is considered CAPA
2.0, this is, this is based based on legislation that has stalled in the House at the House at the national level. Hold on just a second. Yes, because this was on the deferred list, you do
not have a copy of it. You will have to open up your iPads or whatever device you have to find
Speaker 212
52:47
it. OK, you can continue, Representative Grandma, I appreciate
that, Senator. So This legislation was actually brought to me by another member of the chamber. He said, you know, I have a lot of interest in this space and that I should consider looking at it, and so I did. I've worked I worked with the governor's office originally to make sure this is something we want to move forward with, and they said they would like to. I have spoken with groups Apple, Meta, Verizon, X, telecommunications, game
companies, I bet I've had 10 or 15 different stakeholders who have provided input on the bill that we have in front. us right now. Essentially what this bill does is it extends protections that are under CAPA to individuals 13 to 17 years old, so people who are still considered minors. And just largely the following things. It makes an unlawful to collect data on children and teens
Speaker 212
53:40
for targeted advertising. If data is collected on teens for some other reason, there must be clear notice of the data collected, purposes, practices,
the rights of parents and children, the categories of the day is collected in any third parties involved in data collection. There has to be
maintained. They must obtain verifiable consent to collect that data. An example of that is you go onto a website and it sends you a long screen of text and you have the opportunity to look at it and say, yes, I agree to this. No, I do not. Um. Provide upon the request
Speaker 212
54:11
of a parent or teen, description of specific categories of personal information of a child, purpose of collection, the opportunity to request deletion of the account, Challenge info,
accuracy, and obtain any personal information that has been collected. This cannot also require a child to just disclose more information than necessary to do a variety of things. It also requires entities to have reasonable security practices to protect personal information of children. If a and it does allow a company if you refuse to give verifiable consent, then they don't have to necessarily give you services. Essentially what this does, this bill aims to protect the data of our children
and teens from bad actors while they operate in an online environment. I'll take any
Speaker 66
54:55
questions. Questions from committee, Senator Ross. I'm
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
54:59
sorry if I missed in your presentation, you know of other states that have this law or similar.
a number of other states are looking at it, like I said before, since it's stalled at the federal level, there's other states who are looking at this kind of legislation and operating in different places, different areas around it. I know
there's a couple of northeastern states that have started to look at doing some similar stuff in this space. I know there's other states who have this stuff and they're working through it
right now. Thank you. Senator Des, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for bringing this up. I, I love our attention to try to protect kids online. It's definitely been a theme for this, this body. I think I just have a general question on this bill aligning with definitions under current social
media Safety Act and or other bills that have been in front of us just really want to make sure that we don't have Duplicate definitions of social media and an age of focus for minors. So I'm not sure if you've had the chance to kind of cross reference this with Senate Bill 6612 and 611. But do you have any concerns about how we define social media? I would, I would say broadly.
I would say no. I think, I think you probably know better than I do on those bills since they dropped relatively recently, and these have been out for a little while. The original bills were 1082 and 1083. I had amended those bills so many times that I quite literally messed up BLR formatting and I had to refile the bills under these, so um I haven't been able to to make, to look at those back and forth, so I think that's the only thing I
would have any concern at all is just making sure that if both bills were to pass, which I
think they can live in a world where where they both operate together, making sure that we don't have multiple definitions that conflict, and I don't think we do, OK, but I just, I want
us to make sure we look at that as we move forward. Thank you.
I would agree. Other questions? Representative, what are we protecting from? A online organizations taking, taking our children's data. If you look at some of the definitions that are under like
Speaker 212
57:27
what a child's data is data personal information includes first and last name, physical address, email, telephone, Social Security number, any identifier that permits a physical online contacting a specific environment, geolocation of our children biological, physical, or physiological or psychological character. istic s information linked or reasonably linked to child or teens information linked or reasonably linked to a child or teen or the parents of a child or a teen, we're just trying to ensure that
there's these entities aren't taking our students' data or children's data, utilizing it for profit and then into, I mean, they really shouldn't know where our children are, for example, with the geolocation stuff, I mean like these large entities, these large social media companies and other companies really shouldn't know this information about our kids, If they're going to try profiting off of it. OK, so we're
protecting from them knowing where our kids are. That's, I would say that's one
Speaker 218
58:23
piece, yeah, yes sir. OK, so we're protecting from knowing
where the children's location is. The, but when it comes to profiting off of it, what's the difference from me Doing online searches for ebos and then I'm getting all kinds of messages on ebos which I don't mind because I'm searching online
forebos to my son, uh, who's underage searching online forebos and receiving and them collecting that same information and
then marketing to him. I
think that's a great question, Senator. I would say you're an adult with a fully developed frontal lobe, and we're talking about children who do not have the ability to fully understand. and deal with the things that they're dealing with. They really aren't developed enough always to understand that these are advertisements or um you know they they really don't understand why you shouldn't be giving your information out online and that data can't be could be used from other people, so it really comes down to kids, especially at 1314, 1515 year olds, 16, they're just, they're
just not fully understanding of the decisions that they make and what they put
online and what's collected from them. OK, I'm following you. But Let's say for instance you were here, uh, because of online. Video games which I think there's clear data that shows that a conditioning someone to shoot and kill. Uh, without question. Uh,
someone who doesn't have their fully frontal lobes fully developed is a problem. What is the Problem we're connecting to that that has happened. I mean, I would, I would just say specifically that I
do not think it's OK for other people to have information about my children who are, I only have a 2 month old, a 2 year old and a 6 month old, but I don't think it's OK for them to be collecting my data without my knowledge and without my
consent, and then me not having any recourse to be able to delete or take that information away and that's another part of this bill is allowing parents have access to get that information and have it deleted and request the accuracy of that or change the accuracy of that information. and it In that
space. OK, question, other questions from committee? See none. There's no one here to
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:00:59
testify for or against this bill. Representative, you are recognized to close, uh, thank
you, Chair. Thank you for your time today. I think this is a good step and going in the right direction and protecting our kids and so again thank
you for your time and consideration. I would appreciate a good vote. So Tucker
motion to pass these 2nd, uh, any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying a all
opposed? No. Uh, congratulations representative. You're uh bill has passed. Thank
you, Chair. Thank you, committee, for your time. Uh, who's next? Don't, don't, don't what Don't hesitate or we, we'll be be adjourned. Don't talk yourself out of the
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:02:01
cell Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm Ken Underwood, State Representative, District 616. I have House Bill
1763 that I'd like to run if that would be 1763. Representative, you've already identified yourself for the record, you are recognized to present House Bill 1763, which has an impact assessment
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:02:26
with it. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and this bill and the next one that I have are both brought to me by the deputy, the Benton County Deputy Deputy prosecuting attorney and so this one, it criminalizes the use of a communication device to
facilitate the sale of human beings. We already do this when it comes to the sale of narcotics, which is in Chapter 64. Obviously, we recognize that substance abuse harms addicts, destroys families, destroys lives, leads to other criminal activity. And so what this does is it uses that same logic to apply this to dissuade the sale of human beings, and it just gives one more tool in the toolbox for to combat
black market sale of human lives.
Um, part of the reason um Well, I'm open to questions,
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:03:18
so. Questions from committee. So to Ross You said this is brought by your home county prosecutor. Deputy prosecuting attorney, yes sir.cutor. Has this been reviewed by the uh prosecutors association or they
Speaker 21
1:03:31
endorsing this. That's a great question. I, I did not
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:03:35
run it by them, but he did, and he told me they were
good with it. Now I don't want to speak for them, so I don't want to say that it wasn't part of
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:03:46
their package, but he did run this bill by them. Well, I think it would be wise I just, I think, to get more support from. Broader base would,
would be helpful. So thank you. OK, we've got
Speaker 233
1:04:03
someone coming to the table. You'll identify yourself for the record, Brian Sexton, Benton County prosecuting attorney, 19th Judicial District West.
Speaker 234
1:04:10
This was brought to the senator's attention by my previous office holder who's now my chief deputy. He's worked on several of these cases, and I believe the uh the prosecuting attorneys Association was briefed, and I believe they are it at least in support of the recommendation. Other questions from committee?
Hearing none, I was premature when I asked Senator Irvin this
morning if there could be any more trafficking
Speaker 235
1:04:44
bills, uh. So Representative, can there be any more
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:04:49
trafficking bill? I guess I don't know what the answer to that is, but I'm happy to run any bills that prevents human
traffic trafficking, so. Thank you with no other questions, you are recognized to close for House Bill 1763. I'm
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:05:02
from and I would have asked for a good vote. Thank you.
Well, the committee ocean to pass from Central Johnson
2 from center Ds, any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying I I post.
Congratulations, Representative, your bill has passed. Thank you, Chair. Thank you,
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:05:30
committee. If the committee would allow us to have House Bill 1764 if that would be OK.
House Bill 1764, you were recognized to present. Representative Underwood. Thank you, Mr.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:05:54
Chair. This bill attempts to address an apparent gap in our current Arkansas law that fails to account for previous violations of orders of protection that occurred outside of the state of Arkansas, the state of Arkansas. Clearly, um, it is our intent to provide more serious punishment and accountability to repeat offenders of violations of orders of protection, but unfortunately the current statute appears to give a pass
to those offenders who are new to our state, our state or those. Convictions occurred outside of the state of Arkansas. And the reason why we believe that is under Section 553134 in part it uses the term under this section. So it's referring back to that section of code and so all we're doing with this bill is we're making sure that if you get convicted of an equivalent domestic abuse order violation that that could also be used for the enhancement. I will say part of the reason for this is we
often see victims of domestic abuse. seeing their abuser from other states and then they come to Arkansas and their abuser follows them and so we want to make sure that we are combating Those situations and I'm open to questions. Questions from committee. Center Stubblefield. Mr.
Speaker 107
1:07:08
Chairman, I'd like to explain why I voted against the last bill, if that's OK. Uh, I think it would be more appropriate, Senator Stofield, if you did that after this bill.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:07:22
I I do have a question. Sure. Representative Underwood. Are you familiar with the fact
that we have already passed a bill that is almost identical to the last bill
we ran. No, sir, I'm not familiar with that. Prosecutors, you were that we passed a bill identical to the last
bill that was passed here? No, sir. I'm only
Speaker 242
1:07:46
aware of the one that we just discussed.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:07:53
the, the, the entire prosecutors Are they behind this bill? Sorry for
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:07:57
clarification, are you talking about this bill or are you talking about the one, the one before and this bill. This is the same for this bill, it's the same situation, so the bill was ran by the prosecutors association, and they, it wasn't part of their package, but they didn't have any opposition to the bill. But it wasn't part of their
Speaker 244
1:08:15
package and the bill we passed was part of their package. No, sir.
Speaker 241
1:08:24
Is that true? You're asking me if the bill that we just,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:08:29
I'm sorry. Yeah, is it true that the last bill we passed was part of
Speaker 234
1:08:35
your package? I don't know if it was part of the package or not. Once, uh, once the issue came up in my, at that point when he was reviewing this particular issue, he was still the appointed prosecutor. He'd reviewed it, I believe, with Senator Underwood. He is concerned separately. I forwarded that package to the Prosecuting attorneys
coordinator for their review as well. I believe they're
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:09:00
in support of it. Well, it seems like we're, we're experiencing a lot of redundancy here and we're
voting on the same bills over and over again because I explicitly remember the other bill that we voted on it. We just voted on it today in the Senate. And not, not your representative Underwood. This was another one, but the bill we voted on just before this one was
Almost identical to the bill that we've already passed. So anyway, I, I just want
to. OK. Um Other questions? Centerice Just for clarity back to this bill, 1764 were saying we will you describe that again about a protection order from from one
state to another state. Will you just say
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:10:02
that again for my clarity. Yes, absolutely. Thank you for the question. So the code section says uses the language under this section, and so because of that, we believe that it's possible that if you had a conviction on a different jurisdiction for violations of orders of protection that that would not be used under this code because it says under this section, which is an Arkansas statute, and it's all worth clarifying is if you were convicted in another jurisdiction regarding a violation of border protection, that that can also be used under this section as well.
I hope that answered the question. Other questions from the committee?
This emotion you got emotions propped up. Uh, just for reference, I gave a senior member deference when not speaking on this bill, any of you that might have had a problem with it can always make a point of order, uh, just so
you know how to handle it if you, if you think it's a problem. Uh, there is no one here to speak for or against, Representative Underwood, you are recognized to close for House Bill 1764.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:11:14
Thank you. I'll just say thank you for your time. I know it's late and I'm
close to my. Motion motion to pass from Centra Ds2 from Senator Tucker. Any discussion?
Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye. All opposed. Uh, Representative Underwood, your bill did
not pass. Thanks. Thank you committee. Who's next? I go ahead. Don't talk us out of it. We're still
Speaker 224
1:11:45
sitting here. I'd get to the end of the day.
A position so you can make an argument in case we've left you
Speaker 194
1:12:09
sitting at the end of the thing. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Brown, District 55, and I have House Bill 1749
uniform Trust Decanting Act. House Bill 1749. A representative you are recognized to present House Bill 1749. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Speaker 195
1:12:27
Thank you, committee. The uniform Trust Decanting Act is another one of the bills that was in the Arkansas Bar Association's bill package for
this session. It is a uniform law that's been promulgated by the Uniform Law commissioners. Any time you think of the ULC, think of like uniform commercial code, which I think personally is probably their best example of uniform laws they've put out to the states, 1918 or 19 states have now adopted this 3. Currently pending, including Arkansas, so if we adopt it, we're going to be somewhere in the low twenties. This law essentially provides so trust decanting is the process by which if a trustee has an irrevocal trust and for some reason the trust no longer
works. Maybe there's been some change that was unanticipated, some change in the law, some change in change in the tax code, decanting is the process by which the trustee can take the assets of the trust and pour them into another trust which fixes that problem so that the purposes of the trust set lore are are complied with this uniform law essentially just provides the mechanism, well, that's something you can already do at common law, and you can already do in Arkansas state law. This gives trustees another option, other law they can follow in doing this.
This law provides that there are some guardrails to protect both the trustees and the beneficiaries, for example, the trustee can give notice to the beneficiaries of what they're wanting to do in case any beneficiaries want to object, they can file a petition in court to get a judge to approve if that's the case. Just gives them some guardrails on what to do. Um, this law is going to be probably used more by corporate trustees, so think like a bank is is a serving as a trustee of a trust because this is a law that's in other states they're going to be more comfortable. with it, gives them a little bit
more ability to give notice and more protections and um with that, I'd be glad to answer any questions that Kimmy may
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:14:22
have. Questions from committee. Senator Ross, you're recognized. Is there any opposition you know of? I didn't catch you say that. Oh, no non opposition Senator Rice, and I think it came out of the
House Judiciary and the House floor unanimous, if I remember correctly I think March 17th or something that.
Sir, I think I noticed it was filed like March 17th. That's
right, which has been there a little while. I'm, I'm looking for stuff this late in the session. I, I just hate this stuff. It gets foul one day, it's in committee the next and on the floor the next, but this has been there a while, so thank you. No, sir, no opposition and like I
Speaker 195
1:14:51
said, I think it came out of the house unanimously as a recall, I'm not saying that the house is always right, but it is true that a stop clock is right twice a day, and so hopefully we got it right on this one. Other questions from committee.
Hearing none, there's no one to testify for against Representative. Would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate a good vote. Motion to pass from Senator Tucker. 2 from Senator McKee. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for
the motion signified by saying aye, all opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations representative. You have passed your bill. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you,
committee. Anyone else here to present a bill? Central McKee, if you'd like to present.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:15:41
Uh, take another swing. Can't we hear it twice before we do that? I thought you could do 2
times I'm pretty sure it has to fail twice before we have to explain. Oh, you're right, you're right. OK. We do not have to expunge the
previous vote, but you, if anybody wanted to make that motion, you can, you can bill cane twice before the vote would have to be,
uh, Senator McKee. Uh, you are recognized to present. House Bill 1779. Uh Which failed just a short
time ago. I'm sure you're going to make a more powerful presentation. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:16:42
Chair. Matt McKee, State Senate District 6. Appreciate the opportunity to go through this one more time. You heard a pretty good explanation of it last time. Uh, we're not looking to put more folks in jail. We're looking to increase the disincentive for folks to wander around and pull stuff off our porches, so it's a prosecutors would like to say a few words with your permission, let them introduce themselves. I'm gonna let
Speaker 189
1:17:07
them say whatever they want to say, Tom Tatum, prosecuting attorney, 15th
Speaker 242
1:17:14
District. Brianex and Benton County prosecuting attorney, 19th Judicial District West. OK,
uh, I think we heard everything before. But you can, you can talk if you want to. I'll remain silent then. Uh, questions from
committee. Hearing none, Senator McKee, would you like to close for your bill? Close for my bill. I
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:17:39
appreciate a good vote and I move for adoption, move for due
pass as amended, as amended 2nd from Senator Ross uh discussion will begin with
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:17:53
Senator Ross, and I just want to say that, you know, I, I appreciate concern on these things and, and sometimes, you know, I heard about the entrapment deal and all that. But it is, if people don't understand in this day and age and they evidently don't because they continue to do it. You ain't got any business going on somebody else's place and picking up even an empty box.
And, and it just this, the explanation from prosecutor Xu I thought was good and in stating uh what he did, so I wholeheartedly support this and think it will be a deterrent. Thank you.
Center Tucker, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I, I sincerely appreciate
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:18:39
the good women and men and the prosecutor's offices who do great work, um, so my, I oppose this bill, and it's not
because I don't respect the work that they do. We passed somewhere between 30 and 50 cents enhancements of bills sentence enhancements here every session. Now this is my 5th session. I've yet to see a sentence reduction. Um, when we talk about how we're going to, you know, fill up this prison before one ever gets a bill. I totally agree with Senator Rice that porch piracy is wrong. The question is, How much of a punishment does someone deserve for? There's no dollar threshold in this crime. Now I understand the way that it
may be applied. It is different from what's in the bill, but that's not what I'm voting on. I'm voting on what's in the bill and what's in the bill is if you take an empty box off someone's porch. They're subject to a sentence of imprisonment of up to 10 years, and that's just And excessive punishment for a crime of that magnitude, so I think I frankly think class D felony is too high, but that's not what's performing what's before me is to move from class D to Class C. That's excessive in my view, and I'll be voting no.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:19:53
Senator Tucker, I appreciate. Your objections at the same time as somebody who
has stuff sitting on his front porch all the time, much to the consternation of my wife, uh. The The idea that somebody You know, if they come get
a box off my porch. It may be worth nothing. I've actually had things sent to me that were worth nothing. Ah.
And and it may be worth a whole lot of money and they don't know when they go get that box. What it's worth, and I understand the caution of having an amount in there also understand from the beginning what was said this is a crime that we could wipe out that would like to wipe out. You shouldn't be going on somebody's porch a center right said and taking something off that porch, uh, and if you do in Arkansas, if this passes, we may have what you have referred to as an excessive
penalty compared to others, but the message would be clear. uh, don't do it, and I had when the entrapment argument was brought up earlier that's something I might have brought up on another thing, but again, if it's, if it's sitting on the front porch. It's, it doesn't matter if it came from Amazon. It doesn't matter if it came from the post office. It doesn't matter if I've had it sitting there for a month, uh, you're a thief, and the rest of us can't do business. If we have to watch out for
that, obviously in my neighborhood up to now I haven't had to watch out for it, because they're not taking the stuff that's already sitting there and sometimes it's a expensive vintage stereo and sometimes it's a package from the post office, but For those that are having to deal with this in our law enforcement. I'd like to do everything we can to help them and everything we can to stop it, so Senator Tucker, you may be right. This may be excessive, but I like it anyway.
Other discussion. Harry Nunn, all for the motion signified
by saying aye, all opposed. Uh, congratulations, Senator McKee.
You have passed Senator Gilmore's bill as amended. Anyone else here to run a bill?
Uh, the, uh, Uh, my apologies to the people, the back to the people at the
banquet I was supposed to be at and to the visitation that I was supposed to attend. Uh, yeah, and Central McKee was also supposed to attend, which would have you would have had a hard time, but we got the business done. You may not see me in the morning, but we got the business done this that's because the funeral's in the morning and I got to go to one or the other, so appreciate because when y'all stay like this and for the public who's watching, when y'all stay like this, you're always missing something important that somebody else wanted you to be at, even if
it's just just your family. So, uh, thank you for staying. Thank you for staying continually and let it be known for the record, we ran every bill up to April 7th that anybody was here to present, so if they don't get it through Wednesday or even Friday, God forbid that we're here, but I've been told that we're going to be a then it's not our fault, so we are adjourned. See you
Agenda
RE-REFERRED TO COMMITTEE
SB461
J. Scott
TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN
SB501
J. Scott
TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A
SB548
G. Leding
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; AND TO REQUIRE
SB581
B. King
TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND
SB629 Caldwell TO ALLOW AN OFFICER OF A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION TO REPRESENT THE COROPRATION IN COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVICTIONPROCEEDINGS AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER PROCEEDINGS.
SB631
B. Davis
HB1726
Gramlich
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT.
SB6
B. King
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM.
SB452
B. King
CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR RECYCLING OF
REGULAR AGENDA
ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS.
SB462 J. Scott TO CREATE A CERTIFICATE OF EMPLOYABILITY FOR A PERSON WITH A
FELONY CONVICTION; AND TO ALLOW THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION AND CIRCUIT COURTS TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF EMPLOYABILITY.
SB477 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield
HB1692 M. Brown TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS AND VOICE STRESS ANALYSIS EXAMINERS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS AND PRIVATE SECURITY AGENCIES.
LANDLORD TO PROVIDE CERTAIN NOTICE TO A TENANT WHEN A COURT HAS ISSUED A WRIT OF POSSESSION.
THAT NOTICE OF A WARRANT BE SENT TO THE PERSON NAMED IN THE
ARREST WARRANT.
SB549 G. Leding TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE SHALL BE REFUNDED UPON AN ACQUITTAL, A DISMISSAL, OR
AN ORDER OF NOLLE PROSEQUI.
SB566 B. King PROVIDE FOR FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT, OR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE AND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; AND TO ADDRESS PRISON OVERCROWDING.
TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT.
HB1749 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT.
HB1778 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF STALKING TO INCLUDE PLACING A PERSON IN FEAR OF SEXUAL ACTS; AND TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF COURSE OF CONDUCT WITH RESPECT TO STALKING.
HB1779 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW RELATED TO THEFT OF PROPERTY; AND ENHANCE THE OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE THEFT OF A POSTAL PACKAGE DELIVERED TO A PERSON'S RESIDENCE AND LEFT WITHIN THE CURTILAGE OF THE RESIDENCE.
HB1830 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE PROCUREMENT OF CONTINGENCY FEE CONTRACTS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
HB1831 M. Shepherd TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.
HB1848 Hudson TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS IS IN A CHILD'S BEST INTEREST WHEN
THERE IS DOMESTIC ABUSE.
SB143 B. King TO AUTHORIZE THE DIVISION OF ARKANSAS STATE POLICE TO COORDINATE WITH LOCAL SHERIFFS AND THE DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTION IN
CRIME REDUCTION AND PREVENTION ACTIVITIES.
SB144 B. King CONCERNING THE BACKLOG OF INMATES AWAITING TRANSFER TO THE DIVISION OF CORRECTION; TO PROVIDE FOR A DESIGNATED DIAGNOSTIC
INTAKE FACILITY; AND TO CREATE COUNTY JAIL-STATE INMATE CLOSE-TO-
HOME PARTNERSHIPS.
SB145 B. King TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS RESULTING FROM LITIGATION INVOLVING THE USE OF FUNDS FROM THE
GENERAL IMPROVEMENT FUND OR ITS SUCCESSOR FUND OR FUND
ACCOUNTS.
HB1611 Gonzales TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ANIMAL FIGHTING; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF
UNLAWFUL ROOSTER FIGHTING.
SB441 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025.
SB595 G. Leding TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN BEFORE A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION.
SB609 J. Scott TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN BEFORE A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION.
HB1763 Underwood TO AMEND THE HUMAN TRAFFICKING ACT OF 2013; AND TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL USE OF A COMMUNICATION DEVICE DURING THE COMMISSION OF A HUMAN TRAFFICKING OFFENSE.
HB1764 Underwood AN ACT TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING A VIOLATION OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION.
HB1780 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE RETENTION OF PROPERTY RELATED TO A FELONY INVESTIGATION.
HB1829 Dalby TO AMEND THE DOMESTIC ABUSE ACT OF 1991; TO PROVIDE FOR REMOTE TESTIMONY IN CERTAIN INSTANCES IN A HEARING UNDER THE DOMESTIC
ABUSE ACT OF 1991; AND TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT FOR A DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE INTERVENTION PROGRAM.
HB1875 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE EXTENSION OF THE MANDATORY PERIOD
FOR THE USE OF AN IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICE.
SB509 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield
HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY.
SB628 Gilmore TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING COURT TRANSCRIPT FEES; AND TO INCREASE THE TRANSCRIPT FEES TO WHICH A COURT REPORTER IS
ENTITLED.
THE CORPORATION IN COURT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EVICTION PROCEEDINGS AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER PROCEEDINGS.
TO AMEND ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING HEARINGS ON THE REVOCATION OF
PROBATION OR SUSPENSION.
SB630 B. Davis TO REQUIRE ONLY A COURT TO FIX PUNISHMENT IF A DEFENDANT IS CHARGED WITH A FELONY OR MISDEMEANOR; AND TO REQUIRE ONLY A
JUDGE TO SENTENCE A DEFENDANT FOR A CHARGE THAT RESULTS IN A CONVICTION.
DEFERRED BILLS
HB1717 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN AND TEENS' ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT.
SB356 J. Bryant TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE ARKANSAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER BY THE OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT
ENFORCEMENT OR CRIME VICTIMS REPARATIONS BOARD.
SB5 B. King TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE.
WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
SB472 J. Bryant TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION OF AN E-LIQUID PRODUCT OR VAPOR PRODUCT BY A MINOR.
ADJOURN
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Apr 7, 2025 | Agenda | 3 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Speaker 5
Speaker 6
Senator Alan Clark Chair
Unverified
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
Speaker 53
Speaker 55
Speaker 56
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Speaker 65
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Speaker 75
Speaker 80
Daniel Sho
Unverified
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 105
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Chair
Unverified
Speaker 136
Speaker 150
Speaker 153
Speaker 66
Speaker 164
Speaker 157
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
Speaker 187
Speaker 194
Speaker 195
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 203
Speaker 42
Speaker 207
Senator Tyler Dees Chair
Unverified
Speaker 212
Speaker 208
Speaker 218
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
Speaker 21
Speaker 233
Speaker 234
Speaker 235
Speaker 107
Speaker 242
Speaker 244
Speaker 241
Speaker 224
Speaker 189