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
- Whisper
- Model
- ggml-large-v3-turbo.bin
- Processing date
- October 7, 2026
Unknown speaker
0:00
Thank you. Wherever you want to go.
Speaker 5
0:30
Senator McKee was here. I think he walked in the
Speaker 6
0:36
back. 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 Caldwell, what's
your bill number? Thank you, Mr. Chairman of the committee.
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:01
Senate Bill 629. And we're
going straight to it. One, because you're here, and two, because we are under orders to get
Senate bills heard first. Thank
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
1:20
you. You did identify yourself for the record, didn't you? Senator Ronald Caldwell,
District 10. Members, 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 law. But for decades, I've been able to represent myself in a small claim court or courts to affect an eviction. And due to court rulings a few years back, I'm no longer able to do that. It costs landlords approximately $1,800 to $2,000 per eviction to get someone out now.
And this is a good public policy. I'd
appreciate a good vote. Senator Johnson, you're recognized. Did you say
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
2:21
due to a court ruling? Several years back, Senator Johnson, you could have individuals evicted under a criminal statute and no longer can do that. And so now you have to hire an attorney to go through civil issues. And we've had to come back and define the differences in certain squatters and tenants.
And so we've done that. But 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,
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 ALL IT DOES IS LET AN INVIGIAL WHO IS A MEMBER OF AN LLC OR A CLOSELY HELD CORPORATION
TO BE ABLE TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES IN THE EVENT OF EVICION ONLY.
OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE? SENATOR CALLEDWELL, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON ME AS CHAIR TO
BE TRANSPARENT, NOT SPEAKING against your bill uh members the uh legislative committee of the bar association texted 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 y'all know that as you're uh making your 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 the last
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
4:39
15 minutes and senator uh clark i want to do say that that uh representative dauby and i have worked on this bill for months before the session started and and we've made several
adjustments and it wasn't that i waited to 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 six weeks ago and THEY JUST GOT IT OUT.
NEW SPEAKER: NO. 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. NEW SPEAKER: NO, SIR. I UNDERSTAND. OTHER
QUESTIONS FOR SENATOR COLWELL? HEARING NONE, WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY HERE
TO SPEAK AGAINST OR FOR. SENATOR COLWELL, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED OR CLOSED FOR
Senator Ronald Caldwell
Unverified
5:25
YOUR BILL. NEW SPEAKER: I'M CLOSED FOR A BILL AND I WOULD APPRECIATE
A VERY GOOD VOTE. THANK YOU. MOTION DO PASS FROM SENATOR STOKEFIELD. SECOND
FROM SENATOR RICE. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL FOR THE MOTION. SIGNIFY BY SAYING ALL. ALL AGAINST. MOTION CARRIED. CONGRATULATIONS. SENATOR CALL, WILL YOU HAVE PASSED YOUR BILL?
Okay, yes, Senator Gilmore was called away on a personal emergency. It may have been a sign. Prosecutors' bills weren't supposed to be heard today. Just giving my friends good ribbing. Yes, Senator McKee, if you are ready. What are the numbers?
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.
Speaker 53
7:29
Senator Matt McKee, Senate District 6. Do you want to have these folks recognize themselves as well?
Speaker 55
7:39
Yes, please. It's our setting there. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I'm Lori Kempuris. I'm the
Speaker 56
7:46
Deputy Prosecutor Coordinator. Tom Tatum, Prosecuting Attorney, 15th
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
7:51
District. Senator McKee, you are recognized to present House Bill 1778. Mr. Chair, if it's okay with you, I'd like to make a motion that we add Senator Gilmore
as the Senate sponsor on this bill. We've got
a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. The bill has been amended to having Senator Gilmour as the Senate sponsor. You may present House Bill 1778 as amended, Senator McGee. Mr. Chairman,
Speaker 55
8:27
members of the committee, this bill makes an amendment to our current stalking statute.
What this does is add in conduct to 571-229, which is our stalking statute. it adds to stalking in the second degree that placing a person in imminent fear of unwanted sexual activity which is trying to turn the page sorry about that sexual intercourse or deviant sexual activity or other sexual contact to
either that person or a member of their a 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 sends text messages to a person and with pictures and threatens to sexually assault their children that's kind of what's behind this so 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
Speaker 65
9:49
stalking second-degree and so that's what this bill does questions from committee
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
10:09
Yeah, on the circumstances that you've got listed here, as far as being identified as
a stalker, a person commits stalking in the second degree of he or she knowingly engages in a course of conduct that harasses another person and makes a terroristic threat with the purpose of,
this seems like it would fit a lot of situations where a person wasn't really stalking, that was
just, you know, had the intent of aggravating or?
Speaker 55
10:48
Well, I believe in order for it to fit, 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. And course of conduct is a pattern of behavior that consists of at least two or more
acts separated by 36 hours. So it has to fit within the stalking
Speaker 75
11:30
guidelines and ramifications in order for it to fall under the stalking statute. It couldn't
Speaker 55
11:37
just be sending text messages with sexual innuendo. It would have to actually be a threat to sexually assault or abuse a person. that would be covered under this. So this
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
11:51
would be somebody, maybe a child's word against someone else's word
if they didn't have it on social media?
Speaker 55
11:59
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 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 of physical violence or harm towards the the person's child but of sexual activity towards the
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
12:26
child. I can understand if you've got text messages. That's evidence. Yes
Speaker 55
12:30
I can understand that easily. That's what we would have
to have I think in order to charge under this provision Other questions from committee Ms. Concuris,
Speaker 80
12:50
Mr. Tatum, is this in any particular section of the law? It would be amending
571-229. Right, but this is just stalking. It's not in any particular situation.
Speaker 80
13:05
Stalking in general. Well, it's stalking in the second degree, not the first degree. Right.
Speaker 55
13:13
And again, the situation that led to this was a case involving someone who was getting text messages threatening to harm or sexually abuse 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 at work, at night.
then and in one of those texts I said if you don't pay me
I'm going to beat your rear-end how does not fit that does does not fit this
Speaker 55
13:49
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 as it adds an additional way to commit stalking in In other words, if your threat was separated by 36 hours from the text messages, two or
more acts, stalking is 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 may not be
Speaker 75
14:37
depending on the timing of the the conduct okay so even
under current law if somebody was owed money and thought
particularly that they had been wronged or scammed uh if they were persistent enough it could be considered stalking yes sir thank you other questions
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
15:08
from committee SEEING NONE THERE'S NO ONE HERE TO TESTIFY FOR OR AGAINST SENATOR
MCKEE YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO CLOSE FOR YOUR BILL WE'RE CLOSED WE APPRECIATE A GOOD VOTE AND I MAKE A MOTION DO PASS
A MOTION DO PASS SECOND FROM
AS AMENDED MOTION DO PASS AS AMENDED SECOND FROM SENATOR JOHNSON ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL FOR THE MOTION SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? CONGRATULATIONS, SENATOR MCKEY. YOU HAVE PASSED HOUSE BILL 1778. YOU'RE GOING TO PRESENT HOUSE BILL 1779. WITH YOUR PERMISSION, SIR. YOU ARE
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
15:47
RECOGNIZED TO PRESENT HOUSE BILL 1779. MATT MCKEY, STATE SENATE DISTRICT 6.
Daniel Sho
Unverified
15:53
and would you like to introduce yourself my name is daniel shu i'm the elected prosecuting attorney for sebastian county 12th judicial district
Speaker 56
16:08
and i am the president of arkansas prosecuting
attorneys association tom tatum prosecuting attorney 15th district search mcgee mckee you are
Daniel Sho
Unverified
16:18
recognized present house bill 1779 if i may speak mr chairman yes What this bill does is it changes the, in essence, the porch pirate bill that had been
passed in 2021 from a D felony to a C felony. What we've been seeing, if you want to Google porch pirate Arkansas, you'll see a number of cases all across the state from Jonesboro to Fort Smith to Hot Springs, Logan County. It's easy to find these cases because they keep occurring, but obviously 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 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 misdemeanor. So the natural thing is if you make it a C felony, then the attempt becomes a D felony. And for stealing an 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 South Sebastian County or whether it's the city of Fort Smith, how 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.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
18:40
Thank you, Mr. Chair. 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 a dollar. Right, left on somebody's porch. Right. You could be sentenced to
Daniel Sho
Unverified
19:01
prison for up to 10 years for that. Hypothetically. Well, under the law. Well, I mean, under the sentencing guidelines, C felony theft and a D felony theft is a precious little difference.
They're both alternative sanctions, which is usually probation or a suspended sentence. I would be very surprised to see many porch pirates in the penitentiary at this time. Is there anything in the law that prohibits us from setting the penalty for an
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
19:27
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 lines of Class D felony and not have it be one notch below
Daniel Sho
Unverified
19:43
the commission of the crime? A prime example of that was a bill y'all just passed with the fentanyl, the delivery of fentanyl or death by delivery on fentanyl as those were unclassified. I recall. And, I mean, that's just our statutory scheme. But we could, if we wanted, pass a
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
20:01
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 murder to be the same as for the commission of murder.
Daniel Sho
Unverified
20:16
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 YOU, MR. SHU. THANK YOU, CHAIR. MR. CHAIR. YES,
Speaker 105
20:41
SIR. OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMITTEE? SEN. STOLFILL.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
20:44
DAN, I KNOW THIS IS PROBABLY WAY OFF COURSE, BUT THIS TO ME LOOKS LIKE IT'S A KIN TO ALMOST
Daniel Sho
Unverified
20:53
entrapment. Now, we've had that discussion on a different sexual solicitation issue. This would 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 Subblefield, 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 dan
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
21:25
30 years ago they wouldn't have thought of going up there and stealing it either it's what it seems 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 and delivering every package. It's almost like we're tempting the worst out of society. And I'm not taking up for these people. Don't get me wrong because they're wrong. But it just seems like the
more of this, and I wonder how many more prisons we're going to have to build to hold every one of these people. Because at the rate we have enhanced penalties on crimes in the last three sessions I've been here, and I've been here a lot more than that, the numbers are going to have, in another two sessions, we're going to have numbers 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 going down this
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
22:49
road, we're going to have half the population in jail. Senator Sutherford, I think specifically, I appreciate your question, your concern there. I think you mentioned, though, that the possibilities of these porch pirates ending up
Daniel Sho
Unverified
23:01
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 C 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.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
23:29
What if they've got a clean record, squeaky clean record, never committed a crime? They still get 180 days?
Speaker 116
23:37
No. I mean, that... What would they get?
Daniel Shue
Unverified
23:42
In that scenario, that's going to be a probation case. So they
Daniel Sho
Unverified
23:51
would be out on probation? Absolutely. With no fines? Well, no, generally there's going to be probably a $1,500 fine
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
24:06
in Sebastian County. $1,500? That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Hewitt, I support your bill. Do you happen to know, just for reference, has 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. I just wonder, being across the line, if that state had done something that helped theirs that we could see.
Daniel Sho
Unverified
24:29
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 can check and see when the iPhones are going to be delivered, and 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 bait there, catch them and stop them, that stops them from playing on, you know, if it's happening in Hackett or if it's happening in Fort Smith or if it's happening in Greenwood. It's kind of a general deterrence tool
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
25:07
for law enforcement. I believe we do have some of
Daniel Sho
Unverified
25:10
them coming over from there on our side. Well, the last time the Southwest Times record did a survey of the felony cases that we filed, 37% were from Oklahoma.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
25:21
All right. Thank you. Yes, sir. Other questions from committee? Mr. Chair, I 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 it to make Senator Gilmore the Senate sponsor of House Bill 1779. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye.
Aye. All opposed? We have amended House Bill 1779 to make Senator Gilmore the sponsor. Any other questions from the committee about the bill? Hearing none, there's
no one to testify for or against. Senator McKee, would you like to close for your
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
26:14
bill? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm closed. I make a motion for due pass as amended. Appreciate
a good vote. Motion from Senator McKee. Second from Senator Ross.
Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? No. At this time, Senator McKee, your bill fails. THERE'S ONLY FOUR VOTES. YOU WANT TO PRESENT HOUSE BILL 1780. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. LOOKS LIKE THIS ONE HAS SENATOR GILMORE'S ASSENTENCE.
YEAH, WE'RE AHEAD OF THE GAME ON THIS ONE. YOU WANT TO PRESENT THIS ONE?
OKAY. COME DOWN AND GO RIGHT THERE, IT'S FINE. RECOGNIZE YOURSELF. SENATOR MCKEE,
Speaker 56
27:07
YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO PRESENT HOUSE BILL 1780. tom tatum prosecuting attorney 15th district this is this
Chair
Unverified
27:13
is as you can see this is a pretty short bill what it does is it provides 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 be
Speaker 136
27:36
happy to answer any questions on it and if
Chair
Unverified
27:47
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 there's been a attorney general's opinion
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 these property to individuals that's not part of an investigation or it's part of a closed investigation if that if that makes sense i'm listening okay 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
Chair
Unverified
28:50
the case and uh somehow i never heard 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 we had a homicide investigation a guy was having friends over one of the guests they get in a dispute over a woman shoots the other guest he's he's there with the homeowner
who's not involved in the altercation has a 22 pistol on his side law enforcement arises 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 uh 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. Okay. I don't know that this goes far enough, but it seems like certainly that ought to be on our agenda somewhere as returning people's property.
Chair
Unverified
30:06
Do people have to request their property back? Yes, Your Honor. I mean, 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 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 any anyway I mean for I'm in a rural district I mean it's well we would love to get rid of this property I think you've
identified a bigger problem because I I have to tell you, 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 like my stuff back. I don't think that anybody thinks I've got to ask for my stuff back, especially when
Chair
Unverified
31:20
law enforcement and prosecutors have it. I agree with you. I would be fine with it being automatically returned, but this bill meant a little bit
more resistance than I was expecting, to be quite honest with you. I'd love
to see that bill. The other questions from committee? Seeing none, there's no one to testify for or against. Senator McKee, you are recognized to
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
31:52
close for House Bill 1780. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We're closed. Appreciate a good vote. I'll make a motion. Do
pass. Motion to do pass from Senator McKee.
Second from Senator Tucker. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion
signify by saying aye. All opposed? Congratulations, Senator McKee, you have passed House Bill 1780. Mr.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
32:18
Chair, with your permission, I've also got 1830 and 31 for Senator Gilmore, if that's
okay. House Bill 1830, Senator McKee, you are recognized to present it.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
32:34
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to bring the Attorney General's office to the
Speaker 150
32:44
table and let her introduce herself. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. Alex Benton with the AG's office. Ms. Senator
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
32:56
McKee, you are recognized to present House Bill 1830. Thank you, committee. This House Bill 1830 is a very simple
Speaker 153
33:02
bill. All it 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 counsel fees and much of what our office does with enforcement results in civil penalties when reduced to a judgment and 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 counsel also fronts all of the upfront costs 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 just like in private practice. 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. So that has become a problem when we've hired outside counsel to bring forth cases. We bring a litany of causes of action and then currently we've 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 office is asking this committee to repeal this section so that when we're calculating
how we are paying outside counsel, we can use these civil penalties. So we're not increasing the percentages that outside counsel can recover. We are not seeking for any funds 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 hearing none uh no one here to speak
for against center mckee you are ready to you are recognized TO CONTROL. YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO CLOSE -- IT'S
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
35:52
BEEN A LONG DAY -- FOR HOUSE BILL 1830.
NEW SPEAKER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'M CLOSED. APPRECIATE A GOOD VOTE. I MAKE A MOTION FOR DO PASS. NEW
SPEAKER: I HAVE A MOTION DO PASS. SECOND FROM SENATOR STUBBLEFIELD. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL FOR THE MOTION TO SIGNIFY BY SAYING
AYE. ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. Congratulations, Senator McKee, you have passed Senator Gilmore's bill. What's next, 1831? Yes, sir. Senator McKee,
you are recognized to present House Bill 1831.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
36:26
Thank you, Mr. Chair. House Bill 1831
Speaker 153
36:28
is also dealing with civil penalties, so I won't belabor the point and re-explain all of that, but the issue that we have run into is that the law very explicitly states how we can spend settlement funds, 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 talked about how we are to treat civil penalties.
So former practice of many former AG's 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. So we have proactively come to seek to ask your permission. 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 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 just like we would normal settlement funds
Speaker 66
38:07
subject to your questions questions from
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
38:15
committee is there a dollar amount to these
Speaker 153
38:22
grants so the ag's office has restricted and unrestricted grants that that he can give from settlement funds 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 that the AG has given from unrestricted settlement funds, let's say to the drug courts. There has been some money that has been given to AOC 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 spend on
Speaker 164
39:13
an annual basis. Do you have a list of people that could qualify for these grants that can
Speaker 153
39:20
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 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. Other questions from committee?
and tell me again exactly what this bill is changing
Speaker 157
40:03
yes mr. chair this bill explicitly says that
Speaker 153
40:06
civil penalties may be used the same way as settlement funds so when we receive funds in lawsuits either we're 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 okay so you are
changing the law to fit practice is that correct yes sir well
Speaker 153
40:55
prior practice Tim has 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 okay other questions from
committee HEARING NONE, THERE'S NO ONE HERE TO TESTIFY FOR OR AGAINST. SENATOR MCKEE, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO CLOSE FOR THE BILL. NEW SPEAKER: THANK YOU,
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
41:23
MR. CHAIRMAN. I'M CLOSED FOR THE BILL, APPRECIATE A GOOD VOTE, MAKE A MOTION TO DO PASS.
NEW SPEAKER: MOTION DO PASS, SENATOR MCKEE, SECOND SENATOR RICE. DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL
FOR THE MOTION, SIGNIFY THE SAYING AYE. ALL OPPOSED? CONGRATULATIONS, SENATOR MCKEE. have passed House Bill
1831. What's that? Yes, we're gonna, Senator Tucker's got a SENATE BILL WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FIRST.
SENATOR TUCKER, YOU'RE RECOGNIZED. WHAT'S THE BILL NUMBER?
SENATE BILL 600. SENATE BILL 600 WHICH HAS AN AMENDMENT? YES, SIR. WOULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
42:33
RECORD, PLEASE? CLARK TUCKER STATE SENATE DISTRICT 14. WOULD YOU EXPLAIN THE 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's worth less than $100,000 in a lawsuit, then Arkansas law governs the transaction and any litigation pertaining to that contract is subject to the jurisdiction of this state. Concern was brought to my attention that sometimes people buy mobile homes in Arkansas and then transport them to other states.
so this amendment accommodates that concern. It's an agreed upon amendment with the lenders who brought this to my attention and Senator Rice's attention as well. So all this does is it adds the word in Arkansas to line 34 of page 1 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 oh i think we need to suspend we may need
is this not is this on the agenda
colby okay because i okay we passed it out the amendment was engrossed i re-referred it to committee on the floor today for us to hopefully adopt this amendment and and repass it back out so that's where we are
we have a motion to adopt from Senator Dees. Second. Second from Senator Tucker. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signify
by saying aye. Aye. The amendment has been adopted. Would you like to close
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
44:14
for your bill? I believe I'm closed, Mr. Chair. I appreciate
a good vote. I move to pass. Motion to pass from Senator Tucker. Second. Second from Senator Dees. Any discussion? Hearing none. As amended, all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye.
Senate bill 600 has passed as amended the 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? You know who's been here the longest Senator Petty
SEN. PETTY, WHAT BILL NUMBER? HB 1692. HB 1692. OK. SEN. PETTY, IF YOU AND THOSE WITH YOU WILL IDENTIFY THEMSELVES FOR
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
45:28
THE RECORD. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Jim Petty, State Senator, District 29.
Speaker 187
45:31
Mr. Chair, Matt Brown, State Representative, District
35. Captain Dustin Morgan, State Police. All right. Senator Petty, you're recognized to present House, and Representative Brown to
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
45:45
present 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 195
46:07
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 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, passed 17-3-102, which essentially provides that licensing
decisions cannot be made based on vague terms like moral turpitude. So essentially it wants us to get it out of our code, and 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. 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 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 clarifies
Speaker 194
47:33
that it's a two-year, I think a license lasts for two years, is that right captain morgan that's correct and it
Speaker 195
47:40
clarifies that within that two 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 a parity between existing state police rules in 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 already looked at and 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 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
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
48:49
any questions the committee may have. Senator Rice. When you all tell me, you mentioned the refresher training on page 3, 7E2, what does the refresher training consist of?
Representative Lee Johnson
Unverified
49:02
Senator Rice, it's different for armed and unarmed security officers. Unarmed are required six hours every year for refresher training. Commission 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 that would be pertinent to an officer that's present in schools would this be
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
49:36
something they probably get paid for and highly wise in their position i'm sorry senator rice can you repeat that is this something they 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 seeing none uh no one here to
speak for against uh representative brown uh would you like to
and center petty would you like to close for house bill 1692 we're closed mr
chairman appreciate a good vote will of the committee motion do pass from center tucker second from center rice NEW SPEAKER: ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, ALL FOR THE MOTION, SIGNIFY BY SAYING I. NEW SPEAKER: ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED, CONGRATULATION, SENATOR PETTY, REPRESENTATIVE BROWN, YOU HAVE PASSED YOUR BILL. NEW SPEAKER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU, COMMITTEE. NEW SPEAKER:
Senator Jim Petty
Unverified
50:41
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, THANK YOU, COMMITTEE. GOOD LUCK THE REST OF THE NIGHT. NEW SPEAKER: THANK YOU.
NEW SPEAKER: WHO'S NEXT? NEW SPEAKER: THANK YOU FOR WISHING US GOOD look for the rest of
the night, Senator Petty. I can't help but notice that Senator Gilmore and the prosecutors who insisted
watched the other two walk out of the room, though. They're
Speaker 42
51:18
not sharing my pain. Representative, would you
Speaker 207
51:22
IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD? ZACK GRAMLICK. STATE REPRESENTATIVE DISTRICT
50 FORT SMITH. AND WHICH BILL IS IT? HOUSE BILL 1717. IT'S ON DEFERRED BUT I WAS ASKED TO
TAKE IT OFF A WHILE BACK. REPRESENTATIVE GRAMLICK 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 IT. SENATOR DEES makes a motion. Second from Senator McKee. Any discussion? Senator D'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 signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? All right. Representative Gramlich, you are recognized to present
Speaker 212
52:14
House Bill 1717. Thank you very much, Chair. Thank you, Committee, for your time today.
House Bill 1717 is considered COPPA 2.0. This is based on legislation that has stalled at the House at the national level.
Hold on just a second. Yes, sir. Members, 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 it. Okay, you
Speaker 212
52:44
can continue, Representative Gramlin. 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 worked with the governor's office originally to make sure this is something we wanted 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 of us right now. Essentially, what this bill does is it extends protections that are under COPPA to individuals 13 to 17 years old, so people who are still considered minors. It does largely the following things. It makes it unlawful to collect data on children's and teens for targeted advertising.
Speaker 212
53:37
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 data is collected, and 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. Provide upon the request of a parent or teen. Description of specific
Speaker 212
54:08
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 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 questions questions
Speaker 66
54:50
from committee senator ross i'm sorry if
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
54:54
i I missed it in your presentation. Do you know of other states that have this law or
other states that are looking at it. But 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 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. And I know there's other states who have this stuff and they're working through
it right now. Thank you. Senator Dees, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for bringing this. I love our attention to try to protect kids online. It's definitely been a theme for 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. Sure. So I'm not sure if you've had the chance to kind of cross-reference this with Senate Bill 612 and 611. But do you have any concerns about how we define social media? 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 uh 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 i haven't been able to 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 they both operate
together, making sure that we don't have multiple definitions that conflict. And I don't think we do, but I just 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? Online organizations taking our children's data. If you look at some of the definitions that are under, like, what a child's data is,
Speaker 212
57:22
personal information includes first and last name, physical address, email, telephone, social security number, any identifier that permits a physical online contacting of specific environment, geolocation of our children, biological, physical, or physiological, or psychological characteristics, 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 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. 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, especially if they're going to try profiting
off of it. Okay, so we're protecting from them knowing where our
Speaker 218
58:18
kids are that's I would say that's one piece.
Yeah, yes, sir Okay, 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 ebox and Then I'm getting all kinds of messages on ebox, which I don't mind because I'm searching online for ebox to my son, who's underage, searching online for
e-bikes 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, oh, these are advertisements, or, you know, they really don't understand why you shouldn't be giving your information out online and that data could be used from other people. So it really comes down to kids, especially a 13, 14, 15, 15-year-old, 16, they're just not fully understanding of the decisions that they make and what they put online and what's collected from
them. Okay, I'm following you, but let's say, for instance,
were here because of online video games which I think there's clear data that shows that conditioning someone to shoot and kill without question someone who doesn't have their frontal lobes fully developed is a problem. What is the problem we're connecting
to that has happened? I mean, I would just say specifically that I do not think it's okay for other people to have information about my children. I only have a two-year-old and a six-month-old, but I don't think it's okay for them to be collecting my data without my knowledge and that 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 to 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's in that space okay
question other questions from committee seeing none there's no one here to testify for
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:00:54
against this bill Representative, you are recognized to close the bill. Thank you, Chair. Thank you,
committee, for your time today. I think this is a good step in going in the right direction in protecting our kids. And so, again, thank you for your time and consideration. I would appreciate a good vote.
Senator Tucker, motion do pass. Senator D, second. Any discussion? Hearing none,
all for the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Congratulations, Representative. Your bill
has passed. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Committee, for your time.
Who's next? Don't, don't, don't, what?
Don't hesitate or we'll be adjourned. Don't talk yourself out of the cell. Thank you,
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:01:56
Mr. Chair. I'm Ken Underwood, State Representative, District 16. I have House Bill 1763 that I'd like to run, if that would be okay. House Bill
1763. Representative, you've already identified yourself for the record.
You are recognized to present House Bill 1763, which has an impact assessment with it.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:02:21
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 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 to combat black market sale of human lives. Part of the reason, well, I'm open to questions. Questions
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:03:13
from committee? Senator Ross? You said this is brought by your home county prosecutor?
Deputy prosecuting attorney, yes, sir. Deputy prosecutor. Has this been reviewed by the prosecutor association? Are they
Speaker 21
1:03:26
endorsing this? That's a great question. I did not run it
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:03:30
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 their package, but he did run
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:03:41
this bill by them. Well, I think that would be wise. I think to get more support from a broader base would be helpful, so thank you.
Okay, we've got someone coming to
Speaker 233
1:03:58
the table. If you'll identify yourself for the record. Brian Sexton, Benton County Prosecuting
Speaker 234
1:04:03
Attorney, 19th Judicial District West. This was brought to the senator's attention by my previous officeholder, who's now my chief deputy. He's worked on several of these cases, and I believe the Prosecuting Attorneys Association was briefed, and I believe they are 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
Speaker 235
1:04:39
trafficking bills. So, Representative, can there be any more
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:04:44
trafficking bills? I guess, I don't know what the answer to that is, but I'm happy to run any bills that prevents
human trafficking. So, thank you. With no other questions, you are recognized to close for House Bill 1763.
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:04:57
I'm closed for my bill, and I would have asked for
a good vote. Thank you. Will the committee? MOTION DO PASS FROM
SENATOR JOHNSON SECOND FROM SENATOR DEES ANY DISCUSSION HEARING NONE ALL FOR THE MOTION SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE ALL OPPOSED
CONGRATULATIONS REPRESENTATIVE YOUR BILL HAS PASSED THANK YOU CHAIR THANK YOU COMMITTEE
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:05:27
IF THE COMMITTEE WOULD ALLOW ALSO HAVE HOUSE BILL 1764 IF THAT WOULD BE
OKAY house bill 1764 you are recognized to present representative underwood thank you
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:05:49
mr 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. Clearly 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 or those convictions occurred outside of the state of Arkansas. And the reason why we believe that is under section 553.134 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 fleeing 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 um those situations and i'm open to questions questions from committee senator stubblefield
Speaker 107
1:07:03
mr chairman i'd like to explain
why i voted against the last bill if that's okay uh i think it would be more appropriate senator stubblefield if you did that after this bill all right i do have a
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:07:19
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 aware that we passed a bill identical to the last
bill that was passed here no sir i'm only
Speaker 242
1:07:42
aware of the one that we just discussed. Are
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:07:46
the entire prosecutors, are they behind this bill? Sorry, for clarification, are you talking about this bill or
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:07:52
are you talking about the previous one? I'm talking about 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
Speaker 244
1:08:10
part of their package. And the bill we passed was part
Speaker 241
1:08:14
of their package. No, sir. Is that true? Are you asking me if the bill
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:08:24
that we just passed? I'm sorry. Yeah. Is it true that the last bill we
Speaker 234
1:08:30
passed was part of your package? I don't know if it was part of the package or not. Once the issue came up At that point, when he was reviewing this particular issue, he was still the appointed prosecutor. He reviewed it, I believe, with Senator Underwood. His concerns separately, I forwarded that package to the prosecuting attorney coordinator for their review as well.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:08:51
I believe they're in support of it. Well, it seems like 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. We just voted on it today in the Senate. Not your, Representative Underwood. This was another one. But the bill we voted on just before this one was almost identical to a bill that we've already passed.
So anyway, I just want to know why I
voted. NEW SPEAKER: OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS? NEW SPEAKER: SENATOR DEASE. JUST FOR CLARITY, BACK TO THIS BILL, 1764, WE'RE SAYING, WILL YOU DESCRIBE THAT AGAIN ABOUT A PROTECTION ORDER FROM ONE STATE TO ANOTHER STATE, WILL YOU JUST SAY THAT AGAIN
Representative Kendon Underwood
Unverified
1:09:55
FOR MY CLARITY? NEW SPEAKER: YES, ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. 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 would not be used under this code because it says under this section which is an arkansas statute and so all we're clarifying is if you were convicted in another jurisdiction regarding a violation of order protection that that can also be used under this section as well I hope that can answer the question.
Other questions from the committee? 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. just so you know how to handle it if you think it's a problem.
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
1:11:09
Thank you, committee. I'll just say thank you for your time. I know it's late,
and I'm closed for my bill. We've got a motion to do pass from Senator Deese. Second from Senator Tucker. Any discussion? HEARING NONE, ALL FOR THE MOTION, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. ALL OPPOSED?
REPRESENTATIVE UNDERWOOD, YOUR BILL DID NOT PASS. THANK YOU, CHAIR. THANK YOU, COMMITTEE.
Speaker 224
1:11:40
WHO'S NEXT? DON'T TALK US OUT OF IT. We're still sitting
here. I'd get to the end of the table. Have position so you can make an argument in case we've left you sitting at the end of the table.
Speaker 194
1:12:04
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Matt Brown, District 55, and I have House Bill 1749, Uniform Trust Decanting Act.
House Bill 1749. Representative, you are recognized to present House Bill 1749. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you,
Speaker 195
1:12:22
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. Anytime 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. 18 or 19 states have now adopted this. Three are currently pending, including Arkansas, so if we adopt it, we're going to be somewhere in the low 20s. This law essentially provides, so trust decanting is the process by which if a trustee has an irrevocable 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 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 settler 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, another 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. This law is going to be probably used more by corporate trustees. So think like a bank is 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 with that, I'd be glad to answer any questions the committee may have. Questions from committee?
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:14:14
Senator Rice, you're recognized. Is there any opposition you know of? I didn't catch you to say that. Oh, no, no in opposition, Senator Rice. I think it came out of
the House Judiciary and the House floor unanimous, if I remember correctly. It was filed, I think,
March 17th or something. Sir? I think I noticed it was filed like March 17th. That's right. Okay, which has been there a little while. I'm looking for stuff this late in the session. I just hate this stuff. It gets filed one day, it's in committee the next and on the floor the next. But this has been there a while, so thank you.
Speaker 195
1:14:46
No, sir. No opposition. And like I said, I think it came out of the House unanimously, as I 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 or against. Representative, would you like to close for your bill? I'm closed, Mr. Chair, and I'd appreciate a good vote. Motion to pass from Senator Tucker. Second from Senator McKee.
Any discussion? NEW SPEAKER: HEARING NONE, ALL FOR THE MOTION, SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE. NEW SPEAKER: AYE. NEW SPEAKER: ALL OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED. CONGRATULATIONS REPRESENTATIVE, YOU HAVE PASSED YOUR
BILL. NEW SPEAKER: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. NEW SPEAKER: THANK YOU, COMMITTEE. NEW SPEAKER: ANYONE ELSE HERE TO PRESENT A BILL? NEW SPEAKER: SENATOR MCKEE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT,
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:15:42
TAKE ANOTHER SWING. NEW SPEAKER: CAN'T WE HEAR IT TWICE BEFORE WE DO THAT?
I'm pretty sure it has to fail twice before we
have to expunge. Okay. We do not
have to expunge the previous vote, but if anybody wanted to make that motion, you can. The bill can fail twice before the vote would have to be expunged.
Senator McKee, you are recognized to present House Bill 1779, which failed just a short time ago.
I'm sure you're going to make a more powerful presentation this time.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:16:36
Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. 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. 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 if the prosecutors would like to say a few words, with your permission, let them introduce themselves.
Speaker 189
1:17:02
I'm going to let them say whatever they want to say. Tom Tatum, Prosecuting Attorney, 15th District. Brian
Speaker 242
1:17:08
six and Benton County prosecuting attorney 19th Judicial District West The I think we
heard everything before But you can you can talk if you want to I'll remain silent then Questions from committee Hearing none
central McKee would you like to close for your bill close for my bill
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:17:35
Appreciate a good vote and I move for adoption move for do pass as amended as amended
second from center Ross Discussion will begin with center Ross And I just
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
1:17:48
want to say that, you know, I appreciate Concern on these things 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 it just, this, the explanation from Prosecutor Hsu, I thought was good in stating what he did. So I wholeheartedly support this and think it will be a deterrent. Thank you. Senator
Tucker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Hsu. You know, I sincerely appreciate the
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:18:34
good women and men in the prosecutor's offices who do great work.
So I oppose this bill, and it's not because I don't respect the work that they do. We pass somewhere between 30 and 50 sentence enhancements here every session. Now, this is my fifth session. I've yet to see a sentence reduction. We talk about how we're going to fill up this prison before one ever gets billed. 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 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 an 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 before me what's before me is to move from class d to class c that's excessive in my view and i'll
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
1:19:47
be voting no senator tucker i appreciate your
objections uh at the same time as
somebody who has stuff sitting on his front porch all the time much to the consternation of my wife the the idea of 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 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 we'd like to wipe out you shouldn't be going on somebody's porch as Senator Rice said and taking something off that porch 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 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 doesn't matter if it came from Amazon doesn't matter if it came from the post office doesn't matter if I've had it sitting there for a month you're a thief and the rest of us can't do business uh if we have to watch out for that obviously in my neighborhood up to now
I haven't had to watch out for it uh because they're not taking the stuff that's already sitting there and sometimes it's a expensive vintage stereo uh and sometimes it's a package from the post office uh but uh for those that are having to deal with this uh 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?
Hearing none, all for the motion
signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Congratulations, Senator
McKee. You have passed Senator Gilmore's bill as amended. Anyone else here to
run a bill? But my apologies to the people at the banquet I was supposed to be at and to the
visitation that I was supposed to attend. Yeah, and Senator McKee was also supposed to attend,
which 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. 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 your family. So, thank you for staying. Thank you for staying continually and let it be known for the record,
we ran every bill up through 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, then it's not our fault. So we are adjourned. See you Wednesday.
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
Speaker 116
Daniel Shue
Unverified
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