Judiciary Committee - Senate
Video
Transcript
1 document
Bills discussed (51)
| Bill | Title | Sponsor | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
|
SB583
Act 990
· 7 mentions in chapter, transcript
Matched: “SB583 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE COS…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE COST LISTS RELATING TO PHARMACY SERVICES. | C. Tucker | Notification that SB583 is now Act 990 |
|
SB590
Act 769
· 6 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE COST LISTS RELATING TO PHARMACY SERVICES. SB590 Gilmore TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN TH…”
|
TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN … | Gilmore | Notification that SB590 is now Act 769 |
|
SB477
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…AND CIRCUIT COURTS TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF EMPLOYABILITY. SB477 G. TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVI…”
|
TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. | G. Stubblefield | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB509
· 4 mentions in agenda, transcript, chapter
Matched: “…E TO A TENANT WHEN A COURT HAS ISSUED A WRIT OF POSSESSION. 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. |
|
SB575
Act 989
· 4 mentions in chapter, agenda, transcript
Matched: “SB575 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSTALLMENT FEES COLL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSTALLMENT FEES COLLECTED IN CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS; TO AMEND … | C. Tucker | Notification that SB575 is now Act 989 |
|
HB1611
· 3 mentions in transcript, agenda, chapter
Matched: “…are you in the room? What House bill is it you're running? House Bill 1611.”
|
TO AMEND THE DEFINITION OF ANIMAL FIGHTING WITH RESPECT TO THE OFFENSE OF UNLAWFUL ANIMAL … | Gonzales | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1624
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1624 Gazaway TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP…”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARDS. | Gazaway | Died on Senate Calendar at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1630
Act 599
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…N AN ACQUITTAL, A DISMISSAL, OR AN ORDER OF NOLLE PROSEQUI. HB1630 Gazaway TO ADD A MISDEMEANOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENSE T…”
|
TO ADD A MISDEMEANOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENSE TO THE PREDICATE OFFENSES FOR CAPITAL MURDER, MURDER … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1630 is now Act 599 |
|
HB1641
Act 600
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1641 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HARASSMENT; AND TO INCL…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HARASSMENT; AND TO INCLUDE THE USE OF A TRACKING DEVICE … | Clowney | Notification that HB1641 is now Act 600 |
|
HB1662
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTI…”
|
TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY. | B. McKenzie | Died in House at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
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 |
|
HB1729
Act 679
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY. HB1729 R. Burkes TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROV…”
|
TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT A HOMESTEAD OWNED BY A … | R. Burkes | Notification that HB1729 is now Act 679 |
|
HB1749
Act 680
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…GIBLE FOR THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. HB1749 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT. HB1777 G…”
|
TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT. | M. Brown | Notification that HB1749 is now Act 680 |
|
HB1778
Act 832
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1778 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF…”
|
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
· 2 mentions in chapter, 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 |
|
HB1799
Act 685
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1799 Vaught TO AMEND THE PERMISSIBLE METHODS OF REPORTING UNDER…”
|
TO AMEND THE PERMISSIBLE METHODS OF REPORTING UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT. | Vaught | Notification that HB1799 is now Act 685 |
|
HB1831
Act 690
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “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 |
|
HB1835
Act 691
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…ERNING THE USE OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. HB1835 Dalby CONCERNING SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS; AND TO UPDATE AN…”
|
CONCERNING SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS; AND TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING DRUG COURT, MENTAL … | Dalby | Notification that HB1835 is now Act 691 |
|
HB1838
Act 713
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1838 Dalby TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROBATE ACTIONS; AND TO A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROBATE ACTIONS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ADOPTION AND … | Dalby | Notification that HB1838 is now Act 713 |
|
HB1839
Act 692
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1839 Dalby TO AMEND THE PROCEDURES FOR THE DECLARATION OF LEGAL…”
|
TO AMEND THE PROCEDURES FOR THE DECLARATION OF LEGAL DEATH OF A MISSING PERSON. | Dalby | Notification that HB1839 is now Act 692 |
|
HB1844
Act 822
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “HB1844 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF FLEEING BY…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF FLEEING BY MEANS OF A VEHICLE OR … | Tosh | Notification that HB1844 is now Act 822 |
|
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. |
|
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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “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. |
|
SB320
Act 518
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB320 Irvin TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989”
|
TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989. | Irvin | Notification that SB320 is now Act 518 |
|
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: “…1 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025. 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. |
|
SB458
Act 988
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OR RECYCLING OF WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. SB458 G. Leding TO REQUIRE A COURT TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF FACT…”
|
TO REQUIRE A COURT TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF FACTORS SUCH AS TRAUMA AND INVOLVEMENT … | G. Leding | Notification that SB458 is now Act 988 |
|
SB461
· 2 mentions in chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB461 J. Scott TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONF…”
|
TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS. | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB462
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN ARKANSAS PRISONS AND JAILS. 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB472 J. Bryant TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION…”
|
TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION OF AN E-LIQUID PRODUCT OR VAPOR PRODUCT … | Underwood | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB485
Act 670
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield SB485 C. Tucker TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCER…”
|
TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENDED IMPOSITION OF A SENTENCE, … | C. Tucker | Notification that SB485 is now Act 670 |
|
SB488
Act 755
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SENTENCE, PROBATION, PAROLE, AND POST- RELEASE SUPERVISION. SB488 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSID…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSIDERED TO BE ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT. | Irvin | Notification that SB488 is now Act 755 |
|
SB5
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNTY LAW LIBRARY BOARDS. 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 agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE USE OF A TRACKING DEVICE IN THE OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT. SB501 J. Scott TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND…”
|
TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A LANDLORD TO PROVIDE CERTAIN … | J. Scott | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB548
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES. Stubblefield SB548 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; A…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; AND TO REQUIRE THAT NOTICE OF A … | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB549
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…WARRANT BE SENT TO THE PERSON NAMED IN THE ARREST WARRANT. SB549 G. Leding TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A…”
|
TO ENSURE THAT MANDATED COSTS AND FEES PAID BY A DEFENDANT IN A CRIMINAL CASE … | G. Leding | Sine Die adjournment |
|
SB555
Act 765
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…PITAL MURDER, MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, AND MANSLAUGHTER. SB555 J. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF VIDEO V…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF VIDEO VOYEURISM; TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF … | J. Scott | Notification that SB555 is now Act 765 |
|
SB566
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…DER OF PROTECTION AVAILABLE TO A VICTIM OF VIDEO VOYEURISM. 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 chapter, agenda
Matched: “SB581 B. King TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE P…”
|
TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT. | B. King | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
SB595
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY. 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. |
|
SB597
Act 770
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…IS IN A CHILD'S BEST INTEREST WHEN THERE IS DOMESTIC ABUSE. SB597 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THREAT OF HARM…”
|
TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THREAT OF HARM UPON A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EMPLOYEE. | B. Johnson | Notification that SB597 is now Act 770 |
|
SB599
Act 744
· 2 mentions in agenda, chapter
Matched: “…SE OF THREAT OF HARM UPON A FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EMPLOYEE. SB599 C. Tucker TO ELIMINATE INTERLOCUTORY DECREES OF ADOPTION; A…”
|
TO ELIMINATE INTERLOCUTORY DECREES OF ADOPTION; AND TO AMEND THE REVISED UNIFORM ADOPTION ACT. | C. Tucker | Notification that SB599 is now Act 744 |
|
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. |
|
HB1726
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1726 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT.”
|
TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT. | Gramlich | Died in Senate Committee at Sine Die adjournment. |
|
HB1777
Act 683
· 1 mention in chapter
Matched: “HB1777 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY…”
|
TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD; AND TO INCLUDE … | Gazaway | Notification that HB1777 is now Act 683 |
|
HB1830
Act 689
· 1 mention in chapter
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 |
|
SB143
· 1 mention in chapter
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. |
|
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 chapter
Matched: “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
Let's call this meeting to order. We have a long agenda that is doubtful we'll get to this morning. I'm going to remind everyone, the people who need to hear it are not in the room but we were here Monday. We're willing to meet in the afternoon and lots and lots of people said they wanted to defer till today. That's going to make this a long day. We are just unless some miracle
happens, we're just hearing Senate bills to get Senate bills out of here. So if you're here for a House bill, you may want to be somewhere else. And We're going to ask that if you testify, you don't repeat yourself, uh, if you do, um, we'll probably tell you that you're repeating yourself because we've
got to, we've got to move today. Do we have a motion?
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
9:32
Have a motion to limit the speaker to
3 minutes. OK, we have a motion to limit those testifying on bills to 3 minutes each. A second motion from Cena, 2 from Censer Stubblefield. Any discussion? All for the motion signified by saying not. So prepare your testimony that way, I hate to have to do that, but uh, Like I said, it's most of these bills that I'm looking at are
not short. Senator King's not in the room, although I know he's planning on running as center Hester in the room. No, central lighting. Center Scott, Center Stubblefield, are you, do you want to run SB 477. OK, going to pass by that Senator Tucker just walked in. Tucker, are you ready to run
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
10:30
485 OK. Of course we had Central
Irvine at the top of the list with concurrent amendment, uh, then we got Central Urban again. Not here, so let's turn to the second page, Central Bryant, not here. We may be running House bills after all. Oh well, we're today we're gonna go and order because of the long, uh, Senator Scott Senator Stubblefield SB 509. No, it's
just the same bill. All right, Senator Scott, Senator King, Senator Tucker, SB 575. You have a
Speaker 21
11:30
minute on that. All right, I've got, I've got a I got another
member coming on that, Mr. Chair. OK. Uh, King's
Speaker 24
11:39
not here. Senator Tucker, SB 583. Let me see right here. Cro said let him know when to come. It's OK, well. I. OK.
Senator Tucker, you have an amendment you need to sign. So we're on SB 583.
Uh, no, because I may not. Just I And Senator Gilmore, you're on the bubble of all these previous people don't show up. Just about. Thank you.
Such a Tucker, would you like to identify yourself for the record? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Clark Tucker, State Senator District 14. And would you
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
13:00
like to explain your amendment. The amendment as represented
more as a House sponsor, and it addresses a concern brought to me by the UFA system. OK. I, I move adoption of the amendment. We've got
A motion from Senator Tucker and a second from most of the committee, uh, any discussion. Hearing none, all for the motion sign I was saying a all posed motion carried. Senator Tucker, your bill is amended. You are recognized
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
13:37
to present SB 583 as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, I think we're all familiar with the system
that the pharmacists live under in Arkansas with the PBMs. I think we're all very aware of the current law which
allows the insurance department to pursue violations against PBMs when they sell drugs. The pharmacists below market value. And I'm supportive of that system. I think the insurance department is is doing a good job with that. The issue is that under the current law, the pharmacist is really the one that suffers the harm, and the pharmacist has no right of recourse under the current law, and the pharmacists also, aside from just getting the PBM to act
right, hopefully act right moving forward based on what the insurance department does to the PBM. There's, there's no compensation to the pharmacists for what they've lost from the PBM and I visited with the insurance department about this, you know, they don't take a formal position. This would really work in parallel to what the insurance department does. The insurance department enforces the law as to PBMs and issues fines to PBMs and that sort of thing. This would put the pharmacists in a position to recover their own damages. What they've they've lost out of
pocket when the PBM has violated the law. That's That's really what this does in a nutshell. I'd be happy to take any questions about it or Questions from the committee.
Speaker 46
15:08
Central days Um Senator Tucker, just with your amendment on it
looked like it struck the $10,000 per violation. And then it added it back. That's just an engrossing thing. Oh, OK.
Speaker 49
15:19
All right, that was my question. Thank you. Yes sir.
Other questions from the committee. Hearing none, there's no one to testify for against Senator Tucker, would you like to close for your bill? Are
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
15:34
you closed for your bill? I think there's someone here who wants to speak for it, but if the if the committee is I don't want to, I'll move things along. I'll I'll close for the bill,
and I appreciate a good vote. I move to pass. We got motion do pass is amended. You got a second from Senator Gilmore, all for the motion signified by saying aye, all opposed. Motion period. Congratulations,
Senator Tucker. You passed your bill. Thank you. here Senator Gilmore. SB 590, we're taking it
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
16:21
just cause you're short, I mean because the bill's short.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Gilmore, Senate District 1 here for SB 590.
Thank you, Senator Gilmore. Uh, you're recognized present SB 59. Thank
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
16:40
you, Mr. Chair. SP 590 is a bill that creates a brand new subor um called the recidivism reduction system. This system will be housed at the secretarial level at the Department of Corrections, and, and this bill creates a lot of things that we've identified over the course of really a couple of years um in trying to look at ways to help reduce recidivism, as you know, our
recidivism rate is nearly 50%, um, and, and with that there was a study that was done by an independent third party that estimates that this is a few years old, estimates that is a cost of about 140 million um because of that, that recidivism problem we have. Um, so this bill Uh, basically, uh, outlined some things the department needs to be doing, um, some of which they're doing in some some way
or another, um, but this sort of expands on it and lays out in some detail, some, some guidance and direction on that. Um, I, I spoke with the chairman of the Board of Corrections about a week ago regarding this, um, I think generally speaking, we are all in agreement as to a lot of the things in the bill. I had another meeting with the department today and a board member of corrections today. And there's there, so I just want to be completely transparent here on the very last page of the bill where it talks about the school district.
There's some concerns with some of that language and, and maybe some potential costs there, but if you look at that language is more permissive than anything, and it requires them to uh study and develop a plan there, um, so we're going to continue to look at that. I told them that I would be happy to take any sort of um um edits that they might have to that, but I would like to move this bill along in this process since we are toward the end, but other than that, those were really the only concern that they had there
and so I'm, I'm waiting on some language, uh, potential language if they send it to me on that. So again, I think we're in a good spot, um, there's a lot of things that we know that we need to address related to uh programming, having a case plan for inmates, all of these things we need to be doing if we are wanting. To make sure that inmates are successful once they get outside the prison walls, and this bill aims to do that. So um it also I think one of the things that it
emphasizes in here is making sure that we have programming and meaningful activities and there's also um language in here to emphasize uh family and faith-based programming as well. So again, we're just trying to set them up for success. So with that, I'm happy to take any questions members may have on the bill. Questions from committee.
Senator Stubblefield, Do you recognize? Thank you, Mr. Sherman, Senator Gilmore.
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
19:39
What, what are some of the uh What
are some of the measures, previous measures that we've taken. In our correctional institutions to reduce recidivism. Great question,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
19:49
sir. Um, so over the course of the last two years, and Senator Tucker can speak to some of this as well because he's been a part of these conversations with the recidivism task force that was created in the ProTECT Act. So one of the things that has been done within the department is they have a lot of programming. What we identified with that
programming was that it was not evidence-based, meaning that it really wasn't meeting the criminogenic needs of the inmates. We're working to correct that. think this, this bill will help do that. It outlines again, like I said, I mentioned the case plan. It mentions risk needs assessment, all things that are sort of being done in part, but not being fully done. Um, and so this, this bill just creates an
outline and reemphasizes what we need to get to that experts have
identified that will help us reduce that recidivism rate. Uh Have, have we
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
20:54
not, and and I do, I do, uh, block the case plan, but have we not been doing a case plan on an inmates in the past,
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
21:05
um. Not Not entirely and and not on every inmate as we've identified
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
21:12
over the course of the reduction task force inmate, but Those inmates are there that fit a particular category. should have a case plan. I
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
21:21
agree. They should. And this will, I think, get us to that point, Senator. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Other
questions from committee. Hearing none, there's no one here to testify for against Senator Gilmore. Would you like to close for your bill?
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
21:39
I'd love to close again, we're just trying to address a problem we
know we have, not the end all be all. We know that. I know Senator Tucker's got a bill that he's working on that also has a lot of recommendations from that task force that I, I think will help strengthen our system, make things better. So again, this is, this is not the end all be all. We're going to continue to work on this, but I think it's a step in the right direction.
So with that, I'm closed. I appreciate. get a good vote, make
a motion to pass. motion to pass. Second from Senator Johnson. Any discussion, hearing none,
all for the motion signified by saying aye, I'll post motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Gilmore, you have passed your bill. Uh, so we're going to make an exception right off the bat, center roll, are you in the room? What House bill is it you're running? House Bill 1611.
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
22:54
All right, Senator Curl, District 3, we've got the bill that everybody's been waiting for, um, this bill, what this bill does is that it does not what this bill does not do is legalize rooster fightings. I'm not with the mafia. I'm not with organized crime like I've been accused of. What this bill does is if you raise these birds. You are not liable for a felony
if someone accuses you. That you intend to fight these birds as the law is now. The irony in this law is that we have now is if you Get arrested. They automatically kill your birds. So the irony is, is people are worried about the cockfighting which this law prevents or we can keep the law the same way, and they kill them anyway. Unless you are fighting them,
Then it is a felony. This is a farmers' protection bill. If anybody has questions, please, I'll
Speaker 83
24:06
try and answer them. Questions from committee. to us. Thank you, Senator Crow I got
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
24:14
people I know and they're not criminal mafia either the raise game birds. In fact, our whole county makes Makes living off chickens one way or the other. Um
But just for a little background, I don't know if you were Uh, had the background on it, but when I came down here in 2009, my first session, just the first few days, then Attorney General McDaniel and Farm Bureau and others had come up
with a compromise. The train had done left the station, I was told. And I said this goes too far. It's not defined in and I had some people admit that, but it
was a cut and dry deal. And there was testimony that it was, it was a slippery slope, and I don't condone cruelty to animals. This is a farming bill, as you said. Do you know of anything uh in this that there's that this is going to enhance any
Speaker 86
25:22
criminal activity. It'll prevent the criminal activity. I just want that clarified. Thank you.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
25:31
Senator Gilmore, you recognize? Thank you. So just trying to get an understanding here, um,
because I've I've, I've heard the what you just said and so and I've also heard the other side of all this. I'm just trying to get an understanding of what it actually does. So the first thing right off the bat for me and, and I actually just asked a colleague on first page line 28, um. We add the word organized. Why, why are we adding the word organized?
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
26:02
Organizes the definition to if you have 2 or more people. Putting, you know, here's the thing is if you have birds, you have to keep them apart because they're natural nature is to fight. So let's say they again have raising these birds and 2 or 3 of them get out. They're going to be fighting in the front yard. That's just going to happen because that's their natural. Indication now if you and I had a bird and we were putting them
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
26:33
down together, that is organized fighting. Releasing them to fight. Oh, OK. Tucker. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator, it would help me with the bill if it were required under the law that all of the roosters that engage in fighting be named Little Jerry Seinfeld.
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
27:03
Well played. Can we consider that as an amendment. We can consider it. I thank
Speaker 51
27:15
you. Other questions from the committee, Senator
Speaker 97
27:21
Stopville. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Senator, Wouldn't this
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
27:29
apply to bulls, cows, almost any farm out you
put two bulls in a pasture, and the first thing you're going to do
is lock horns. Absolutely. So, With this fall under the same Legal definition of Roosters What are you going to put two
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
27:49
bowls in the same pasture so they fight, sir. I do put 2 bulls in the past, but they
only fight for a little bit, not to the death. Well, that depends.
Speaker 105
27:59
I don't know how many cows are in the pat. So the
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
28:06
intent of this is to allow the people to raise these birds because they are very valuable. The bloodlines, in fact, I'm sure
we'll have some people testify, can be hundreds of years old, and they, you know, their shows, if you go to the fairs, these birds are shown. And so that the intent is right now as the law is, you can get $1000 fine for every one of these birds you own in Arkansas. And they are destroyed as a felony.
You know, there's that's not a good precedent for the farmers that want to do this the right way, and I believe we have this bill set up so that we can monitor it and make sure that these people are doing the right thing. Uh, cockfighting in
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
28:54
Oklahoma is legal, correct? I'm not sure about Oklahoma.
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
28:58
I'm worried about Arkansas. I don't know. I'm worried about Arkansas unfortunately it is. I, I would have to have an
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
29:10
expert. No. The answer is no. So we would be the first state. No, we're not legalizing cockfighting, yeah, I don't know what you're doing. Would, would
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
29:25
we be the first state to take this. Can I bring up a witness to answer these questions, please, Chairman. Mr. Chair, could I bring
up a more expert person to answer these questions. Thank you.
Speaker 111
29:43
Thank you, Senator. So identify yourself for the record. Bike Pierce. Are you with anyone? I'm with the Arkansas Game Foul Commission. You are, Senator, to
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
29:54
answer your question, no, Arkansas would not be the first state to lower penalties for owning chickens or for even the fighting aspect, Tennessee did it back in the early 2000s. They went from a misdemeanor to a felony, knocked it back down to a misdemeanor. It's still a misdemeanor today as well as they criminalized owning the
chickens. They re-legalized it. It's still the same law there to this day. They saw no
good out of it. So no, Arkansas would not be the first. That's all I am, Mr. Chairman. OK. Other questions from the committee. Senator Correll, you said that uh You currently would be
fine just for owning one of these birds. It's actually a felony, and you
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
30:45
get a fine is it up to 1000? up to $1000. Fine
per bird. So there's, it's a, it is a felony to own one
of these birds in Arkansas. Yes, so we don't have any of these birds in Arkansas. Allegedly. Man, I answer that. Senator
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
31:08
Stubblefield. We, uh, we do have these birds in Arkansas. We have them all over Western
Arkansas, where I live. Uh, in fact, I have had people sell these birds to other individuals for the specific purpose of fighting these birds. So, these birds are
Speaker 103
31:24
in Arkansas. Yes, the birds in Arkansas, so it's a
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
31:32
felony if somebody deems you have the intent to compete with that bird. It's legal to own them until somebody accuses you, not that you actually did anything, but that you were
Speaker 126
31:40
considering or thinking about doing something. It's an intent on that.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
31:48
Um, currently right now, that's what we're trying to prevent a lot of people do sell them for that, and we don't condone that. What we, what we do, we raise, sell and export these fowl overseas. We raise them in Arkansas as well, but for breeding there show purposes. And there's various poultry shows
Speaker 126
32:03
across the US and the world that we do sell them for. Center Gilmore, you
Chair
Unverified
32:11
recognize? Thank you. And again, not to the point, I'm still high up on
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
32:19
organized because uh I guess I'm just trying to figure out what that means because when you flip over to the other side of
the bill or the other page rather page 2, On line 21, watching or carrying out an organized rooster fight. So what if they're, what if there's a fight and it's not organized. I mean, what if you're not paying for admission? What if you're not, um, advertising. What if you're not doing all the things that would constitute organization, potentially, because it's, I don't.
Uh, because it says organized promotes profits up there on line 5. So what if it's just, you know, family and friends getting together and oh maybe hey, 5 bucks for a beer to come watch us not have an organized fight. That's organized because there
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
33:01
was a process to that unorganized is what's about to happen, so I have a farm here in Heber Springs, Arkansas. We're about to have some nasty wind come today. I, I'd, uh, I think about two weeks ago we had that nasty windstorm come through. I had 2 or 3 pins flip over, had 2. kill each other from that.
That's unorganized. Nobody intended. There was no process to that. I was gone. The pins flipped over. The birds fought. That's unorganized. Organizes there's a process. If I went and pulled the rooster out of a pen, somebody else went and pulled the rooster out of a pen, and we showed them that's organized because
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
33:41
there was a process to that. OK. Follow, Mr. Chair. Yes, because on, so I'm reading under, I guess, Gilmore, could I? I won't, I am going to shortly
Cole Wakefield
Unverified
33:53
as prosecutors to come to the table and explain. What the
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
33:56
law is. Thank you, sir. So just really quick
and I'll be no, you go on page 5 up there, or excuse me, on page 2 line 5, organizes, promotes, or profits from, so What is organized mean? It's not, I don't. See it. It's organized as a
Speaker 133
34:15
fight fighting between. That you made a conscious effort to place them in a situation
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
34:23
where they could fight. OK. But it doesn't I don't see any. Mental state in the bill stating, you know, knowingly or anything like that, that was, there was a
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
34:39
conscious effort involved again, other states have the term organized there. We never ran into this and organizes typically you have, you organized something to do it.
Speaker 133
34:46
You, even if it's just two people picking up chickens. OK, because I mean, again, when you
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
34:56
Because you use consciously there, I think typically the, you know, under a Benz rea standard you're looking for a, you know, mental culpability, but again, I'm not
the lawyer I'd defer to my colleague, but anyway, maybe we'll wait for the prosecutors. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right,
Senator Tucker, Senator Dees. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Can I get help on the
definition on page one. Or maybe some commentary on line
32 and it talks about Exhibition activities, so animal fighting does not include lawful game, foul breeding on exhibition activities. What is exhibition activities. Poultry shows typically
Speaker 124
35:37
whenever you exhibit you're showing the foul. We call them poultry shows or poultry exhibitions. OK, I, I wasn't
familiar of game game hens being shown in county fairs and all, is that, is that a regular practice in our state? Very common, it's
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
35:57
All right, thank you. Tucker Thank you, Mr. Chair. That incident you described where the pins got blown over, are you concerned about being prosecuted because of something like that? No, I wasn't even there,
Speaker 116
36:11
and we took the birds, we put what's called Corona cream on
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
36:14
their head. We worked with them, try to get them back, and they're they're alive and healthy now. Yeah, all right, thank you. Uh Center page 2. Line 22.
A rooster shall not be seized by law enforcement under this section solely based on the rest of a person for violating the provision of this section unless there's a clear and convincing evidence that the rooster was used in rooster fighting. OK, so this is a person's been arrested. is what this envisions for violating the provision of this section. Is it, they're not a chant, a very good chance.
That there is a rooster that's fighting. And other roosters. It would appear to be any other roosters at the same location. There may not be clear and convincing evidence that they that they have fought or But I would assume that if they were at the, at the location where cockfighting was going on, that they didn't just stroll by. Um, am I wrong?
Speaker 143
37:33
Would you mind explaining that a little bit more? I'm, I'm lost on the question there, OK. A
rooster shall not be seized by law enforcement under this section solely based on the rest of a person for violating a provision of this section unless there is clear and convincing evidence that the rooster was used in rooster potty. I don't think that roosters sitting
over here waiting to fight. That you can have clear and convincing evidence that they were, they have been used. And rooster fighting, however, I don't think if they're at the site.
That they, they, that we're intended to take them to a
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
38:12
show, right, so To answer your question there, there actually has been cases of that. They were having poultry shows. The animal rights people called law enforcement. They showed up and accused them of that. They proved they proved it wrong every time we've had that happen in Arkansas as well as Oklahoma, but that couldn't happen under
this bill, so this, this section is in this bill, not what's
happened in the past. And so now you can only, you couldn't be arrested for that. For, for being at the illegal fight. No, you could, I'm assuming the show is not an illegal site, correct. So you, so if you're at the show now, maybe the current law, you can be arrested for being at the show. Yes, that's correct, but this is narrowed it down where that's not even possible. Yes,
Speaker 142
38:58
if you're just out of shell legally biting there, you won't be arrested. So, so this would come back to almost have to be cock potting, yes.
And then you would get a felony and they couldn't confiscate the roosters that are at the location that haven't fought yet unless there's some kind of evidence that they He fault, correct. And
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
39:20
the reason for that whenever they do raid those facilities, they will euthanize the roosters. And a lot of the times they're euthanized before they're even found guilty, but you've got that that's separate in the
bill. If if the bill were to pass, then
They couldn't be euthanized anyway, but this says they can't be taken. Uh, when a person's arrested for this activity unless They've clearly uh and convincing evidence that the rooster was used in rooster fighting, correct.
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
39:59
in 2018 in Du Queen, Arkansas, where they seized the birds. It overwhelmed that county there, and that was from an alleged cockfight there that overwhelmed
the county. They ended up giving all the roosters away. The county couldn't handle that. We actually have documented proof of that that that just overburdened the county. So, uh, again, that's more protecting the counties from having to deal with that because these are, these are hard animals. You have to have a lot of space and a lot of facility to take care of them. OK, uh, Senator McKee. Thank
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
40:30
you, Mr. Chairman. So I'm really just trying to figure out the problem that we're trying to solve.
How can you tell me how many roosters were euthanized in Arkansas under the provisions of existing law for ownership. Under the provisions of existing law. This provision basically for rooster fighting. Can you tell me, is this like a major problem we're euthanizing roosters all over the state. I, I think the, I think
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
41:02
we're getting in the weeds when the high level is, is right now people want to raise these.
And the laws that states now, if they are accused of the intent of fighting them, and they're not. Let's say they're not. They can be prosecuted, these birds can be killed. This bill simply gives them the right to own these animals. Now if they're fighting them, they're, no matter what they're guilty. Everything comes the same. What we're trying to do is the people that are doing right. Making sure they can do this and not without the fear of losing
their animals and without the fear of, you know, if you have a neighbor. That doesn't like you and just says, you know, I think he's fighting it. We've got a big problem with the way the law is written now. This is a parallel but not the same, but you know, I know there's been issues with pit bulls, but
now you see pit bulls all over because the rules are clear, you're not answering my question.
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
42:14
We've obviously got these birds being raised in Arkansas. Do we have a major problem with existing law where there have been many occasions where the individuals have been arrested and the roosters
are being euthanized. No, we don't in Arkansas, but states with similar laws, I've had some horrific
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
42:30
problems. This is a preventive measure to bill. To prevent that from happening in the future. Law enforcement in Arkansas is fantastic here. They have been wonderful to the game foul breeders, but you get one bad actor on there that
That really has it bad, they could go do some bad damage, and we've seen
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
42:53
this in other states with similar laws. OK, so we, we don't have a problem
with this now, but we could what I'm hearing you say, OK, and under existing law. If someone accuses you of rooster fighting. You can be arrested and if you are arrested, it is the law that the roosters are immediately euthanized, correct? That's so the statute says if you're
arrested under the accusation of rooster fighting. Your birds are to be immediately euthanized.
I don't know about the exact language there, but birds are 99% of the time euthanized, so it may not be the law that they're euthanized. Yeah, could be, yeah, correct. OK, thank you. OK, I'm, uh, those of
you that are in the queue, I'm gonna take you, but we're going to bring prosecutors to the table. is
Y'all can stay there. OK. Central, y'all can just stay where you are.
Speaker 159
44:00
Would you gentlemen, identify yourself for the record? I'm David Etheridge. I'm the elected
Speaker 161
44:06
prosecutor for the 14th Judicial District in Arkansas. Chris
Speaker 142
44:12
Walton prosecuting attorney Saline County, Arkansas. Senator, what, what the prosecutors, when we surveyed
Speaker 164
44:18
the prosecutors across the state the 28 of a second, we've got one more person to identify themselves. I'm sorry. My mic went
Speaker 165
44:29
on. I'm Connie Mitchell on the elected prosecutor for 8 South, which is Miller. Right There you go. I don't know if y'all heard me, um, Connie
Speaker 159
44:37
Mitchell, I'm the elected prosecutor for 8 South, which is Miller and Lafayette counties. OK, sir, sorry for interrupting. Not a problem, Senator. The prosecuting association when polled the 28 elected of all of
us, we've only had 4 of these cases, the best we can tell in the last 10 years and looking at the law that exists, we do not find where it
Speaker 171
44:57
shows and that there have to be euthanized when they're seized. Uh, we would bring that to the attention of the committee. Could you repeat that, please? Inside
Speaker 159
45:08
the existing statute, which is 562,120. It does not reflect they have to be euthanized and says they should be forfeited a provision that subsection should be placed with an appropriate place of custody
Speaker 172
45:20
or of animal control agency. But the witnesses, you are saying that
Speaker 133
45:29
they are being euthanized. Yes, when raids on the farms happen, they have been. Do you have any specific
Speaker 116
45:36
instances in Arkansas, not specifically, no. The state's been good for Owing, but the intent of the bill is to clarify that because the vast majority
of the time they are euthanized. At Centra Ds you recognize.
share and this may be a question for a prosecutor and attorneys so when it comes to Intent In prosecution of intent or accused of intent that I, I want to understand that better, right? Wouldn't you have to prove intent to be to be charged versus accused of intent. Will you help me understand maybe some of that. We believe you've asked the
Speaker 176
46:13
correct question and that's where we are. There would have to be intent for us to move forward in a situation like
that, and, but not just accusation of intent, there would have to be some sort of evidence to prove intent for prosecution. Am I saying that the right way? Yes, sir. So I think what I heard in previous testimony was that If anyone is accused, Of raising roosters for For fighting. that these birds would immediately be euthanized, and now in the last two statements, it sounds like it's not being
euthanized in Arkansas and that you can't be Uh, just taking that accusation. Is that how, is that how I
Speaker 171
47:02
should understand that? We would say the statute does not
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
47:08
require them to be euthanized. That is correct. Thank you. Senator Gilmore. Like Mr. Chair, um, so just to go back to What you were saying about not having in Arkansas, but you're seeing it in other states. So let's talk about the other states because I think that's helpful because apparently
Speaker 133
47:22
that's the impetus for the bill, right? So what states and what's happening. So right now Oklahoma has
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
47:28
the number one harshest law in the country. Arkansas's #2. There's a man in Oak, so Arkansas, it's 1 to 6 years in prison per bird. Oklahoma's 1 to 10 per bird, um, there was a man in Nuala, Oklahoma, which is a suburb of Oklahoma City. He got pulled over with a carrying box in his car, which a box that hauls chickens perfectly legal. Uh, that was, he got pulled over the officer for speeding. The
officer smelled marijuana in there. It was a faint smell. They brought in somebody. They have, I don't know what the Arkansas statute is on marijuana. I'm not into that thing, but he had a medical carry card. They smelled it. They ran a test on him, showed he wasn't high, but they saw the box in the back. Well, anyways, they got a warrant to go to his house. They seized, he had 59 roosters there. They seized 59 roosters. He got charged with 59 felony counts facing 59 to 90 years in prison strictly for owning 59 roosters.
The exact same thing could happen in Arkansas with this law right now in Mississippi, there is no law like this. I'm a perfectly legal farm in Mississippi, Louisiana, the same way. Tennessee, the same way. It and Missouri as well is the exact same way. There's no intent laws on that, but Oklahoma and Arkansas does. And there's been multiple cases in Oklahoma where people are getting charged. With strictly owning it, a man up in New York spent 14 months
in prison for owning chickens. It happens everywhere. And again, this is a fantastic state. Law enforcement's wonderful here, but with this law it could happen if he had his 59 breachers in Arkansas, 59 times 6. I wasn't the best in math in school, but whatever that comes out to be 50 minimum 59 to so many years in prison for those chickens for owning them. OK, question for the prosecutors.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
49:24
Go ahead. Thank you. So just if you don't mind, Mr. Ethridge, you get back to, uh, what, what your concerns were in the sense of um Well, and maybe my concerns honestly and and sort of Knowing Being a knowing participant, watching, carrying out, I mean, so how, how do you read that in the From your standpoint, how is this enforceable? How would you see this play out? He's the bill.
Speaker 178
49:56
You're asking about the existing bill, Senator. Yes sir, not existing law 516. Well, existing law and then modified by this. Let's let's go there. The existing law again requires knowingly and
Speaker 171
50:08
it says that very clearly as you've just pointed out, and again we all know y'all get tired of hearing this from prosecutors. There's a reason you give us discretion and, and when you talk to us, this is not a place that we're out looking to prosecute people at and it's been said by other people in
this committee that there are lots of these these Chicks in the state of Arkansas. Nothing's happening, and the Oklahoma situation, I can't address that. I don't know what Oklahoma's law is, so I can't speak to that. I thought I'm gonna let Ms. Mitchell speak about the
Speaker 159
50:38
new one because she spent a lot of time looking at this, so I'll let her go. Thank y'all. The only reason that I can
Speaker 165
50:44
think of for the bill, um, and if you would move move closer to that mic, if you don't mind. I'm sorry. I've never been accused of not
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
50:50
being heard, but I'll, well, it's more about those watching. I
Speaker 186
50:59
understand. Thank you. The only reason
Speaker 165
51:02
for this bill. is to Line the pockets of cockfighters. That's all that it is. There's no need to amend the unlawful animal fighting law. There is no need for an unlawful rooster fighting law, uh, the animals are adequately protected under the unlawful animal fighting law. What concerns me is they're wanting or this bill amends 562 120 to put in the word organized, organized is undefined. I know that the
senator and and Mr. Pierce gave you what they thought it meant, but it is not defined in the statute. Also the current unlawful animal fighting covers dogs, roosters, and bears. I don't really know the last time that we had a bear fight in Arkansas, but that's, that's what it covers. Um, in an effort to basically legitimize decriminalize or water down the statutes for animal fighting, they have
drafted this 562128 for your consideration. Um, it requires organized, which I said is undefined. It removes employed by or engages in rooster fighting. Uh, it minimizes It completely takes out cells, purchases, possesses or trains, and I take great exception to their allegation that anybody that this is a farming bill to begin with is that anybody that
raises roosters and, you know, maybe showing them at an FAA county fair is somehow going to be prosecuted for cockfighting. Roosters, there are a certain breed of roosters. Nobody goes down to tractor supply to buy a rooster to fight, um, they are raised for a very specific purpose and if they are raised, trained, possessed for the purpose of animal fighting, then they can be prosecuted. Um
I have a pit bull. She is the love of my life and my family member. I will never be prosecuted for dogfighting. If, however, I trained her, uh, Purchased her for that purpose or engaged in animal fighting, obviously then I could be prosecuted for that. So it offends me that they're saying that these people are raising these roosters for some sort of a show and then we're going to run out and prosecute them for animal fighting. We're not, um, and, uh, they do not want their
animals seized. I liken if we come upon a dogfighting, we seize the dogs. If you stop someone on the street for possession of a controlled. substance and they have money then we seize that money. We can seize that car. We can seize any assets that um a company the crime itself and seizing the roosters would obviously be a logical choice if those roosters are being used to fight, and I would agree with Senator Clark that there's not going to be a rooster just walking by, a
cockfight, every rooster there is going to be there for a purpose and should be seized. Um, I My office prosecuted a cockfighting case in Lafayette County, which is where Senator Kroll is from, or at least that's one of the counties that he represents, none of those roosters were euthanized. They were all rehomed and so I also take exception to their sweeping allegations that we euthanize all of the roosters that we take just like we don't euthanize the dogs that we take unless of course they are injured and
cannot be. I'm going to hold you up there. I think we've gone from the bill to testifying. Yes sir. of Senator Ross, you recognized? Well, I'm gonna bypass the
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
54:51
last testifier because I think you were fairly flippant, so I'm going to talk to the other prosecutors when you stay and they go to show the FFA show. No, I was just quoting. I'm speaking right now. Yes sir, I find it flippant because there's
been testimony that some of these bloodlines are 100 years old and they have shows for them. Yes sir, I agree I'm talking right now, please. I can tell you're dandy in court. For the other prosecutors. I understand, and I've stated this goes back to 2009. I was here And I felt it was over the top then. I'm not for cockfighting. But I'm for being fair to people.
And people that want to raise game foul. In Arkansas and I appreciate the prosecutors having common sense. I work with you all the time. I think Arkansas has great common sense in a prosecutors. But the subject is people that are raising them are putting themselves and their livelihood in spending because some of these birds are evidently pretty expensive. And they're trusting.
The prosecutors and this witness attend the table has complimented Arkansas many times on this. This last person that testified is totally biased. In her opinion, Can you tell me as prosecutors, The first two, do people put their themselves and their livelihood. Legally on the line for raising birds in Arkansas right now, not just because the current prosecutors are good because
that's, as we've said in this committee time after time that may not always be the case. Would you give me your
Speaker 159
56:53
opinion on that? And Senator, you're asking my opinion to answer that question in the in my judicial district, no, sir, and we have, I mean there are people who I know would raise them in my district.
Speaker 198
57:04
We're not looking at that, no, sir. But the
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
57:09
legal The legal thing that can happen right now if some if a prosecutor wanted to, if this lady wanted to, and
I'm sure what she's saying is true on breaking up an illegal cockfighting deal, but if you wanted to enforce the law that was passed in 2009, you could go out there and do this right now to anybody raising them, correct? Not,
Speaker 159
57:31
not the way I read the law, sir. Because the law says very clearly a person commits the offense of unlawful animal fighting if she knowingly or they knowingly do certain things and just having them is not knowingly doing those things.
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
57:49
there that were loose. I mean, I again, I think y'all got common sense. I appreciate it I appreciate this, this last deal concerns me.
Speaker 159
58:00
I know I live in North Arkansas, but I'm a country boy from South Arkansas, so I'll answer your question. That's not what we're looking at. You're talking about someone having two roosters who get loose in the in the yard, that's not going to happen. And again, I don't think anybody believes
amongst the prosecutor that I could get 12 juries, 12 jurors with their peers to ever convict someone of that either. And so where we would have to
go. It does not meet the standard, and my mind.
OK. Uh, can y'all, uh, to the prosecutors, can you tell me What the law says now because I'm looking here at this bill, and I don't see anything removed. Uh, that would apply to cockfighting, then we have all
this new, what would be new law. What exists now and is it not being removed? If
Speaker 171
58:59
if I understand your question, so bear with me. I think in the new one they removed section C of the existing law where it says sales, purchases, possesses or trains an animal for
animal fighting. I'm, I don't find anything scratched through. That's why I'm
Speaker 159
59:18
We just created a whole new statue. The new statutes doing that, sir, and again, please bear with me because
Speaker 185
59:25
I don't have the new one with me, but when we elected this earlier, they wrote a whole new bill that that's not
in there any longer I'm sorry. want to Line 29, that's. OK, we, we removed rooster, so and that those words right there remove current statute.
In this statute and current statutes again is not just
that, it's We have, so what is current statute on animal? Fighting that
Speaker 171
1:00:07
includes roosters. It's 5621. 562 120 as it does that tell us? It's said in 562 120 it says sales possesses purchases or trains animals for animal fighting. That's what it says in the new in the new statute, which is 562, I believe we call
it 128. They removed that particular language if I'm answering your question and I apologize if I'm not. OK, tell me what the law says again. In 562 120, it has started Section A1 and defines and promotes, engages in or is employed in animal fighting that's not the new
Speaker 159
1:00:47
one. And also the remove 562 120 a 1C sales purchases possesses or trains an animal for animal fighting.
OK, so the current law requires that you Oh are raising it, training it for animal fighting. whether it be a dog or whether it be a rooster or whatever and this removes roosters from that. Uh, so
I'm sorry the Cen Crowe, the gentleman there with you, what what's your name again? Blake
Pierce, Mr. Pierce, uh, you said And you're referring to people in Arkansas, a lot of people. Do raise them for that, and it was unfortunate or something like that. So Does your bill not Uh, make it harder. To go after those people. The people who are raising them,
Speaker 143
1:02:00
so the vast majority of them, 99%, do it lawfully. No, no, no, again, but I'm talking about the 1%. Yes, I'm
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:02:06
going to get into that. So what we did here to answer your question, right now, animal fighting's lumped up with everything. It just has it all in there. We're separating the roosters from the dogs and the bears and all that because we didn't want to do anything to help dogfighting. So that's why we're going away from that. We're getting on our own there and again, the bill does legalize owning them to where you can't be prosecuted for just having them.
But that's the from what I'm getting. You're wondering why we're taking roosters out of the
current animal fighting statute and going, my question was. You said a lot of people which
I guess 1% could be a lot, I suppose, do raise them for that. Uh, does this bill not make it harder to go after those people who do raise them for that. No, because
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:03:00
there's other lawful activities and again, the main
thing on this bill and I'm going to answer that question there is Were you fighting them? Yes or no? If it's a yes, you're gonna get felony charges. If not, Then you're fine because you can do other lawful
Speaker 143
1:03:14
activities with these birds. OK, thank you. uh, just,
uh, I'm gonna recognize Centra Ds to ask a question what the committee know that there are 7 people signed up to testify for
and against. Thank you Mr. Chair, this will be my last question. It's for Mr. Pierce. So with this, with
this bill, it's given protection for For growers and owners of these birds, correct. That's the 100% intent of the bill. And then so. Obviously we've established we don't allow rooster fighting in the state, or I'm not sure of any state in the US, maybe there are some. I'm not familiar with that, but what about Owners who sell out of the country. To countries that do allow cockfighting. This, this would
Theoretically this this would give protections for growers. In the state of Arkansas to grow birds and
facilitate fighting across in other countries is that happening or am I making that up or is that theoretical possibility, I guess theoretically, but
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:04:21
for a farm, our main thing is called TRO's a rooster and two hens. And that's what we export to these countries. The hens don't fight, by the way, they don't do that. So
these farms are being raised and being sold out of the
Speaker 51
1:04:38
country. Sometimes they are absolutely OK, thank you. Other questions from committee. Let's go to Those who are wanting to testify. Uh Cole Wakefield. Do I need to stay here and get Mr. Wakefield, when you're
seated, would you turn your mic on and identify yourself
Cole Wakefield
Unverified
1:05:15
for the record. What Yeah, remind you that it's uh 3 minute. Right. My
Chair
Unverified
1:05:21
name is Cole Wakefield. I am executive director of Good Shepherd Humane Society in Carroll County. In addition to my work at Good Shepherd, I serve on various committees and working groups at the state and national level, and I am currently serving on the board of the Arkansas State Animal Control Association.
Today I am here to speak on behalf of the Arkansas State Animal Control Association and our strong opposition to HB 1611 and also this morning the National Animal Care and Control Association also came out formally against this bill. As a reminder, the Arkansas Animal Control Association is a membership-led organization made up of animal care and control professionals as outlined in the statute of the state, we are the official provider of certification training for animal control officers in Arkansas, and we provided
training and assistance and technical assistance to commissioned and non-commissioned law enforcement throughout the state. First off, let me say that our association respects the right of private citizens to engage in responsible legal breeding of fowl for hobby or show purposes. In fact, some of our members engaged in that very hobby, and while we certainly understand the desire of rooster enthusiasts to protect and promote their trade. This bill seems only to expose the state and its people to great potential harm while trying to solve a problem that quite
frankly does not exist. Now that's important to remember the current set of laws and regulations. are working. We have seen a significant reduction in cockfighting arrests in Arkansas. And not only that, Arkansas's legitimate game in showcock breeding operations are thriving. You can drive up and down Highway 62 in Carroll County. We have several show rooster breeders who are doing great and are not operating in fear of losing their entire flock. There are no black helicopters swooping in and scooping up some poor innocent
farmers, birds. It's just not happening. Our current laws provide for due process and adequately protect the bird owners' rights while balancing the welfare of the birds and the health and safety of our community. But HB 1611 is more than unnecessary. It's actually dangerous. Why this bill nominally maintains cockfighting prohibition. It's so effectively ties the hands of law enforcement that it might as well be considered a de facto legalization of cockfighting. This bill uses imprecise and undefined language such as the term organized when referring to
fights, as everyone on this committee knows bad actors prefer to be able to interpret law in their own favor in bad or ambiguous legislation can get the state in a lot of trouble. The gray area created around the term organizing promotes our profits would effectively legalize any and all preparatory action and fight training up into the actual fight itself. These actions are currently illegal under the current statutes engages in language. So for example, under the new law I could train a rooster to fight,
attach the knife to its leg and even place the rooster in the fighting ring and still not have committed a crime technically, at least if I have a good defense attorney. In fact, under this new law. could actually fight the rooster and as long as law enforcement could not prove that I organized, promoted or profited, I could not change. Or be charged. Senator Tucker, you're recognized for a question. Thank you Mr. Chair. Uh, I
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:08:35
intended to ask the prosecutors this, but you're up there. I'll ask you, do you, do you think you could be prosecuted for a felony under
Chair
Unverified
1:08:43
this bill as written. No, it would, it would effectively make it impossible for our on the ground law enforcement to provide any effective interdiction in actual fighting cases. And my other question is What
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:08:57
if this bill passed, would it allow you to breed, raise, and sell roosters intended for cockfighting so long as you didn't do it yourself, have the cockfighting yourself, the organized cockfighting the way the law is written,
Chair
Unverified
1:09:08
as long as you have a wink wink nod nod that oh, you're not using this
Speaker 224
1:09:14
rooster for fighting, then no, you could not be prosecuted. Thank you. Other questions from committee.
See none We thank you for your. First. We're going to 4, Is this Cody Josephine. I signed up for that, but I, I don't speak. OK, we have another 4. Blake Pierce.
Speaker 143
1:09:52
You have 3 minutes. I identify yourself again for the record, Blake Pierce, again in summary, all I
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
1:09:58
have to say on this, all this bill does is protects people that raise and sell these chickens. You still go out and compete with them, you will get a felony charge. So please, I don't want this bill to be overthought on that because it's not, it's just to protect farmers. Thank you. Questions from committee
Speaker 168
1:10:18
say none. Thank you, Mr. Pier. Uh, Kevin Chambers speak against.
Speaker 232
1:10:32
If you'll turn the mic on and identify yourself for the record. I thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members. I'm Kevin Chambers. I'm the Oklahoma State director. Of the animal wellness action. I'm here, um, because I, I've been a cruelty investigator for 40 years, uh, specialized in cockfighting investigations. And I'm very familiar with the instigators of this bill, the
Oklahoma Game commission, uh, of which Mr. Pierce is the vice president of the Oklahoma Game Commission. Uh, that's the group that came to Arkansas and initiated this bill. Um, the Oklahoma Game Commission. is composed of cockfighters. It's a front group for cockfighters and suppliers of cockfighters, and they had a meeting in Little
Rock. In October of last year where they discussed what this legislation was really about a leaked copy of that meeting is online and in, if you listen to it, you will hear that they Discuss the fact that this bill is just the first step in their
ambition to legalize cockfighting in Arkansas. They say, Mr. Pierce and others. During that meeting, repeatedly tell Arkansas Game raiders, not to talk about cockfighting to stick to the script and not admit to anything to do with cockfighting. So this bill is very well
written for that purpose because this bill is designed to turn Arkansas's very crisp, well written, existing law against animal fighting into a gumbo of Obfuscation that will make it difficult for prosecutors and law enforcement to enforce your laws against animal fighting. That's the purpose of this bill. Uh,
there is no problem. With farmers being arrested or charged for cockfighting, you know, either Oklahoma or Arkansas. It has never happened. In the case of what Mr. Pierce mentioned about the farmer or the game fowl breeder in New Waa, Oklahoma that was charged with 59 counts. He was found with gaffes. Oh, the
The knives that they attach to the bird's feet for fighting purposes. He was not arrested just for owning games. Tom
is a, is there any questions from committee? Center
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:13:57
stubble field are you, are you affiliated with any other groups in Oklahoma other than the one you mentioned
Speaker 232
1:14:06
previously mentioned. affiliated, yeah. No, just animal wellness action,
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:14:13
OK, I noticed the gentleman in the back, when you were talking about these uh spurs, so-called spurs, metal spurs they put on roosters. You were saying that this guy was arrested for that, and he was
Speaker 232
1:14:27
shaking his head no. Well, if you, if you read the police report of that case, you will see that the police obtained a search warrant, went to his house, his farm.
And found birds and gaffes, and as the prosecutors mentioned earlier, you have to prove intent. Uh, and if you find a fighting bird and gaffes. A schedule records of cockfighting, that proves intent and a prosecutor can then take action, but no one has been arrested or charged for simply owning Game. Other questions from committee.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:15:16
Veryunn, thank you for your testimony. We have a
Travis, uh, Proro. To testify for?
Speaker 242
1:15:27
Travis Proto. His flight got delayed. He wasn't able to make it. OK.
Uh, with Connie Mitchell to testify against
Speaker 245
1:15:47
Connie Mitchell. Uh, she's already spoke. OK, and we
had one more who is Taking themselves off the list. Uh Central Kroll, would you like to
close for your bill? Yes, please. Uh, again.
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
1:16:19
I think we're getting in the weeds. This is a farmer protection bill. This we've got non cockfighting. We've gotten non-cockfighting, and we've gotten no cockfighting. This is a farmer protection bill. Ask for a good vote. Thank you. Will
of the committee Motion to pass Senator Johnson, 2nd from Senator Ross. Any discussion?
Harry Nunn, all for the motion signified by saying a. All against. Sutra roll, you did not pass your bill. In Center Urban is up. Rochester. Uh-huh.
It. First, are we going to concur in House amendment on Senate Bill 320? Go ahead
Speaker 252
1:17:38
and go to them. Yeah, I, I may put it to you because I told Dave I would
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:17:48
come right back. Yes, uh identify yourself for the record, Senator Missy Irvin, District 24, uh, Senate Bill
320, there was an amendment that needs to be made. I mean, that's the the total rewrite of the juvenile justice code and so they had an amendment that needed to be made. So just asking for concurrence at the House amendment on Senate Bill 320.
Motion from Senator Gilmore. Exactly. Is there anyone in the
audience? The there's no one in the audience to testify for against Senator Gilmore has made a
A motion to concur in House amendment, so that's the correct language? Senator Tucker has seconded any discussion. All for the motion signified by saying a, all posed. Uh You have We have concurred in the House amendment and what is your bill, is that 488? Or yes, this is Senate Bill 488.
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:18:54
I appreciate Senator Tucker helping me. I know we're super busy right now. I'm trying to
Speaker 260
1:19:00
get back to the committees. Senate Bill 488
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:19:05
has an amendment. The amendment is the work that they did with the prosecutors if there's anybody from the prosecuting attorneys prosecutor's office that wants to come and talk about the amendment, that would be great. If you don't mind. Can I have Laurie Camuris come and just talk through the
amendment. Thank you Ms. Campurro, if you will identify yourself for the record.
Speaker 261
1:19:30
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I'm Laurieure, the deputy prosecutor coordinator, and we did work with the administrative offices of the courts and Senator Ervin on this amendment and basically it was just to clarify some of the language in the previous version, we had some concerns about the order of the sentences and how it was written, but with this amendment, I think we're good with it, and it's basically just clarifying.
that juveniles under the age of 10 are not going to be subject to any kind of juvenile delinquency adjudication and then on page 2. Um That section is basically clarifying that sometimes what happens is a juvenile commits an offense when they're 17, but prior to the time the adjudication can take place. They turn 18 or older, and in some of those situations, the juvenile court would still have
jurisdiction, and this is just to clarify that in those cases where the uh fence actually occurred prior to 18, but they've reached majority before the adjudication, they can still It can go through juvenile court in the proper cases. OK, there's no
one here to testify for against the amendment motion. From
committee Got a motion to pass from Central McKee, 2 from Senator Johnson. Any discussion? All for
the motion signified with saying aye. Center Irvin, your bill is amended. You recognized to present SB
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
1:21:09
488 as amended. Thank you, and I, I appreciate the explanation of the amendment which further explains the need for the bill, the juvenile judges are doing yeoman's work with our juveniles and I think this bill is an important piece of clarification, and you've heard from Ms. Camuris with the prosecutors making sure that
things are more clearly defined and and designated as it relates to a juvenile at at these certain ages. I one of the big stresses and importance to me for the bill is the fact that if they are 17 and then then turn 18 before the case is adjudicated, then that would still remain as a as a juvenile. Um, but, but again, courts do have that discretion and judges still do have those discretions.
So I'm happy to answer any questions from the committee. Hearing none. There's no one to testify
for against Senator Ervin, are you closed for your bill? Yes sir. Mo will of the committee Folks in do pass from Centra Johnson as amended, uh, second from Senator McKee. Any discussion, here or none, all for the motion signified by saying aye, all opposed, motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Irvin, you have passed SB 488 as amended. Thank you, members.
I don't see Senator King in the room, so that Senator King is here and ready, so Yeah It's Which
Speaker 270
1:23:02
bill are we going to run? We're just going to talk about all of them and it was or something else.
Senate bills 143 143, 144, 145, but 143 is what we're going to start with. We're gonna start with Senate Bill 143
Speaker 242
1:23:23
to go through the process and then we'll just pull them down and then have the discussion.
Senator King, if you turn the
mic on when you get down there and
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:23:50
identify yourself for the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members committee, Brian King, state
senator, District 28. Doctor King, you are recognized to
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:24:03
present SB 143. OK. And I talked to some members of the committee, uh, and uh About just presenting these bills, there's this uh. The issue that we're having with
the possible prison and funding, and this is just presenting the other side because there's this idea out here that there's we're going to leave here with nothing is as I sit on the floor is ridiculous. Uh, there will be other alternatives rather than going down this megaprison route. I'll just briefly
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:24:31
go back over. Thank you. Uh, what I talked about yesterday about where we are in this what I call the
Speaker 279
1:24:38
three-headed monster of high crime, overcrowding, and high incarceration rate. And this basically started back
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:24:47
in 2011 when Governor BB got in financial trouble and started letting people out of prison early that should have never been let out. And if you go through
Speaker 279
1:24:55
the process of the bill in 2011, it was titled The Public Protection Act. What you're going to see is that there's been continued promises and bills that we're going to reduce crime, reduce overcrowding in the last 15 years that actually created the crisis that we have, so there is a repeated Part down here that is very important to remember that these promises get made, but yet what
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:25:18
happens is something different. You could see that violent crime went up, violent crime was actually declining in the state,
Speaker 279
1:25:26
and then it goes back up after bills were promised to reduce overcrowding and reduced crime. You can go through the process again of where our prison population is going uh over. There was repeated things some legislators were criticizing the board of Corrections, and that was wrong because basically nothing gets solved down here,
especially on any major level without money. That's just it. And the legislature and governors consistently underfunded corrections over years by 8% of the budget. When I came in in 2006, a long time ago. Corrections was 8. of the budget, it is still 8% of the budget and as I said on the phone yesterday, you have to have money. Corrections should be at least 11 or 12% of the budget to try and address the issue in 2017, I actually filed
a bill if you went to corrections 4 times, you served 80% of your sentence, had a big price tag at that time. I offered Governor Hutchinson and other legislators here that rejected this idea that we at that time Amazon was voluntarily remitting the internet tax. I said, let that be a dedicated revenue stream to build facilities, fund more public safety officers address mental health, address all these issues in 17. That was rejected. If
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:26:43
you go back to the dollar once again, if you want to see where, uh, you know, you know,
politicians, you're, the money should go where your mouth is if you're talking tough and everything on crime. If you look at a percentage of the budget when I first come in, public safety was 1.9% of the budget. correction was 8% of the budget. Last budget, public safety went down as a percentage 1.8%, corrections stayed at 8% of the budget. This next budget is projected at 8% this next RSA, you go through the spending, my big concerns
are with learns everything else that we're spending more money, our revenues are typically declining. We don't know
Speaker 279
1:27:26
what the economy's going to do. So when the the prison issue came up, uh, the original figure that was given was $470 million. I did not give that figure. That figure was given out by the governor for 3000 beds. It's 156,000 per bed that was completely unrealistic. when you look at other states. Uh, the biggest mistake again is from yesterday from Mr. Perfuri that in April of 23 in
Batesville at an audio meeting and I got the transcript, shut down the the calico rock expansion of 525 beds, we could expanded that facility for far less than what it's going to cost in this 525 beds will cost in this mega prison. The biggest issue I think
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:28:09
that people really, really is where our inmates are coming from and if you look at the figure of 8 counties contribute 2 out of 3 inmates
Speaker 279
1:28:17
to incarceration county backlog, those counties are Jefferson, Pulaski, Faulkner,
Sale, Sebastian Crawford, Washington and Benton County. 2 out of 3 inmates originate from just 8 counties. If you look at it, we already have correction facilities in Pulaski and Jefferson County. I mean, I think that that's big in trying to solve the puzzle. If you look at Seline Cropper County are passing jail taxes. All my counties passed jail taxes to address the issue of what is going on with our county backlogs. They're trying to make
sacrifices. If you look at it, was Sebastian and Benton County are failing jail taxes, OK? And yet they're contributing almost one out of every 4 inmates. If you look at the population growth in Benton and Washington County. It's estimated a million, maybe a year in 10 years. If They're not addressing their issue and if we have an overall state issue of counties not addressing their local crime and how much they're contributing the system. Once again, Pulaski and Jefferson already have
border correction facilities. If we do that, we're going to just have a series of dominoes. Why would any county out there pass a jail tax or do anything, why not just continue to dump them on the system. If you look at these megaprisons, I have never been a fan. I worked on this issue in 2017. These megaprisons turn into mega financial disasters. You just have to look at Utah, look at Alabama. These prison building companies estimates, as I said, they can give you whatever estimate and right now
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:29:56
they're only giving you a letter to address. So there's no specifics of that. There's no details of that. Can you imagine me going to you and building your house and giving you a figure of 825 million and providing zero details of anything. So if you look at Utah, for example, you'll see
Speaker 279
1:30:13
that they built a megaprison out there. They started theirs well pre-COVID price explosions, and they were estimated at 500 and something million. It wound up being almost a billion. I think it was 285,000 per bed, and this
was all pre-COVID explosions. They can't staff it out there. This location is located, I think, 5 miles from the Salt Lake City Airport. If you look at the situation in Franklin County, The idea that you're going to get 800 people to work way out in the country in Franklin County is literally a farce. There, there is, there is no way that that's going to happen. You look at the 825 million. Realistically it could be only 2000 beds at the most and would
take probably 5 to 678 years to maybe even get up to that capacity of 2000 by the time you get this bill and go through it, and in that time we may have a series of more pro. explosions Hurricanes, floods, everything else causes explosions in the building process and when you go through
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:31:20
a long term building process, that's why I continue to say going down that and putting everything into one area is going to be a financial death spiral for our state to be able
to afford, you know, my plan is more of a holistic plan that would hire if you don't, as I said on the Senate floor, when you have high crime for an extended amount of time and Keep ignoring high crime, which we have, then you are going to have overburdened court system. You're going to have overburdened jails. You're going to have an overburdened probation parole system where they are underfunded, understaffed and overworked, you're going to have a series of things that continue to fall. The best thing that you can do
in what has been proven, even groups that are not necessarily pro law enforcement have produced studies that show that positive police presence can actually reduce crime because once you have a crime, then you have a booking and then you have an incarceration of some level till they get bonded out. You then have possibly a public defender hired at public money. You then have them out of or incarceration till their court date, then you have them at a court date that costs money. Then you have a trial that
possibly costs money. Then you have a sentencing that costs money and then you have rehabilitation while they're in incarceration and transportation costs in there that cost. Money. You then have release into probation parole that costs money. So the best way that has been found to reduce this and move the needle is to reduce crime before it actually happens. The Senate Bill 143 is about addressing that. It takes $100 million in dedicated revenue
stream money that will hire 400 to 600. public safety officers. These can either be state police, they could also be partnership with counties and actually assist probation parole. If you look in some of these areas where the probation parolee visits are, which probation parole is already under overworked, understaffed, overburdened, and we'll be 5 years from now too. Let's just be honest, then if they're assisting them, then they have a presence in an area that might need the presence.
Little Rock is short, 175 to 100. officers, these areas like Benton Washington County where the growth is happening, where you're having more crime, you know, committed for because of rising populations, we've got to start reducing the crime part because if we don't, we're in a financial depo between this megaprison and the other areas of not building county jails and not trying to address the plan in a holistic problem. The other thing is mental health. One of the bills that I have has
avenues to mental health issues that Senator Tucker. I've talked about that can be more economical and actually address the issue if we continue this part of putting in this megaprison mega financial disaster, we will not have the money to hire public safety officers to actually reduce crime. We will not have the money for mental health facilities. We'll still be talking about them. We won't have the money to help probation parole. We will not have money for overburdened public defenders. We've got to do things to move the needle to reduce that back.
And I have presented all this as an alternative, and I can see right now that the people that were presenting the other side have got up and walked out because it, you know, so I would love to engage them right now because what has happened with this Franklin County thing is being built upon lies and deception and gross incompetence and you know we can look at, like I said, the, the idea that Mr. Porfiri would shut down the calico Rock expansion. Probably cost taxpayers 40 to
$50 million more dollars that we could have done literally a no brainer and getting 525 beds expanded up there and he shuts that down to go with this megaprison will cost taxpayers much more money to build 525 beds at a facility that is 100% staff. There is a lot of things that do not add up about this. My plan would say that if you go back to the first page that in the board. Corrections facilities, they need to be built in the 8
counties or could be built in the adjoining counties with the majority of the court. So if you look at a situation, Mr. Porfiri, I'll go back again, who makes a quarter of a million dollars and cost us $440 to $50 million more dollars by shutting down calico rock no-brainer. Mr. Perfuri told the body in a meeting that the local community needs to embrace it. Well, that obviously did not happen, and this would actually do that. OK, they promise one thing and then they do something else.
I, I don't know how we continue to have the lies and deception and the gross incompetence. If you look at the Franklin County situation, uh, they, they did not investigate the road structure which will have to be rebuilt. There's no water. There's no sewer. You're literally trying to build a 3800 population city out in the middle of the country. They didn't even call it electric cooperative to do that. If a school applied for a grant a partnership on something down here and didn't provide any more than these people are providing,
it would be rejected immediately. Wouldn't even be to discussed. So basically, we need to build the, the benefit to building the facilities and where most of this crime is coming from. Number one, it saves on transportation costs. Also in Northwest Arkansas, if you talk to the sheriffs up there and law enforcement, we only have a diagnostic intake center in Malvern, you know, in my plan, we need to be able to adjust to the population and put a diagnostic intake center up in northwest Arkansas. That's where the population's
growing. It would address that, address mental health. I think that if we are going to spend this much money, I would rather have with part plasma all having literally murders right down the road from us and having probation parole over overworked, overburdened, underfunded, understaffed, that we need to get out there and try and take measures, and I would rather see 400 to 600 public safety officers done in the right way that is consistently being shown to actually reduce crime and reduce cost.
I would rather do that than this farce of thinking that you're going to get 800 people to work up in Franklin County. This thing with no details, if they realistically at best they're going to have 2000 beds in Franklin County. You're going to spend $800 to $900 million. That's 400 and something,000 dollars per bed. That is way over double the cost that we could have done the calico Rock expansion. So I've thrown out a lot of things and I can see that the Mr. Senator Gilmore has got up and left. I was much, very much
wanting to engage with him on this issue, uh, but, uh, you know, I would take any questions from the members and just presenting it because this is this idea that we're going to leave here with nothing, as Senator Hester said is completely wrong. If you want to talk about leaving with nothing. It's been his votes to consistently underfund corrections that put us in this situation and voting for Jeremy Hutchison bills. And going down that path. So with that I take any questions. Senator King, what does SB 143 do? It, it is the
one that is the highest of 400 to 600 public safety officers to actually reduce crime. These could be, this would be under the direction of the colonel, the state police. You have to put somebody in charge of it. It would also avenue the avenues of, uh, you know, possibly in Garland County where you have county deputies do not make what city police do. We have a consistent problem in Every 75 counties, a lot of times county deputies come in and all of a sudden they're making, they train them, spend
the money to put them out there and then they turn around and go to work for a city, so this would try to equalize the county deputy's pay and help them focus on probation, parole, and be about public safety and reducing crime, which is statistically shown to actually help cost and make communities safer rather than just continuing to build more prisons. We are embarrassingly enough, have one of the highest incarceration. rates in the nation. Yes,
we do. So this is designed to lower the incarceration rate
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:39:47
then. So This is designed to reduce crime, which, as I showed before, if you reduce crime before it happens as a beneficial cost of once they enter the court system, cost taxpayers exponentially more. This would make areas the goal of this as what has been statistically proven to actually reduce crime and be able to make place safer that you don't have the crime happen in the first place. It would also allow like counties to equalize county deputy pay so they can help
retain deputies and assist. Probation, parole in their job and much like the drug task force has partnerships. I mean this, we've got to holistically address the crime issue and lower the crime rate first. That's the first thing we need to do, and that's not getting the focus because, you know, these prison building companies and these private prisons are huge donors and can influence things as we've seen in other states, but the second part,
144, takes 600 million. That the facilities would be built where the crime is actually coming from. And that saves on transportation costs. The other part about building the facilities closer in those areas is you have the prisoners. You have, if you are sentenced in Benton, Washington, Carroll or Madison County, and you're in East Arkansas, it takes the families all day to go visit you. If you're a lesser sentenced person, you should stay close to home sentencing where those families can actually visit and interact with
that and hopefully reduce recidivism. This idea that we're transporting prisoners all over the state on these lesser sentenced. They need to stay close to home, serve their sentence out where they're actually close to their family, and it actually saves the the county's money of not transporting these, these people all over the state. That you also the diagnostic intake center for Northwest Arkansas would be huge because then they don't have to transport everybody to Malvern and then transport them back to
another facility. We have to address and look 5 and 10 years down the road or our population and where it's going and build the facilities where the crime's happening. It's not fair to the people in Franklin County that make sacrifices or any other county, Garland County or any other county out there that passes jail tax and makes budget constraints to make sacrifices. While the counties that are not passing jail taxes just continue to dump more in the system. If we allow that to happen, we are on a financial death spiral of just, you know, you take no
responsibility for the crime committed in your county, you can just continue to dump more in the system, dump more in the system, and the burden is on the rest of us that, you know, a lot of these counties like Madison County, they're, they're gonna be paying off a bond, so it's not fair to them to make sacrifices while Benton in Washington County are not
making the same. sacrifices. OK, and SB
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:42:44
145. That basically is only one thing if you uh in the GIF lawsuits, which there's only one out there
with that can a College and I'm the lead plaintiff against him if you remember the ecstas of college scandal and the GIF scandal that happened with public corruption. There was the college president pleaded guilty to bribery as long as legislators, if there is a judgment in that, then it would go to fund public safety officers in that. I feel like the taxpayers, the legislators that were involved in that should have demanded that college pay back the 900. 1000 to us. Unfortunately they're not, but I think that they should pay it. Unfortunately, I, you know, I had to be part of filing a lawsuit to try and get that
money back rightly, I think, for the taxpayers. The other part is 225 million. The other bill is 225 million to address mental health issues and also help counties with grants like we do schools or anything with partnerships and expanding county jails. We could do county partnerships with the state when there are win-win situation much like they did in Phillips County where it's a win-win situation, but 225 million would go straight to helping county jails
expand with a grant with no string. attached. So if Washington County did want to uh Expand a jail, then it could possibly get to or Benton County, could get 25 or 50 million or whatever apply to a grant thing to help on that. It also saves taxpayer money because in the Madison County situation, you know, they're $16 million jail by the time they get their bond paid off, it's going to be $32 million. So if you pay down on the principal of that and the grant, it saves the local taxpayers, save the state.
It had less address local crime issues. It is so much better for the state than do this than to put it in this megaprison mega financial disaster all in one
Speaker 284
1:44:32
hell up basket that is going to be a disaster. OK. Any other questions from
the committee? Center Stubblefield. You know, that's this
Speaker 97
1:44:46
person is in my county. Uh, and can you, can you pull the mic
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
1:44:55
closer? I know that people get tired of hearing the
same thing over and over, but what Senator King is saying is uh a lot of it's just common sense, uh, not having to transport prisoners from all corners of the state to the far western border of Arkansas. And not only are you having a transport prisoners. You've got families that are gonna be driving from Phillips County, Mississippi County, all, all along the western edge and In the central in central Arkansas, all the way to the western border, just to visit
their loved ones. That's a, that's a huge financial, uh, toll on, on those families because a lot of them can't afford it. That, that along with the the no infrastructure. Picking a place that has absolutely no infrastructure and all of this should have been discussed back in 2023, when they first came out and said this thing is going to cost 400 and some odd million and we're gonna put it in far western
Arkansas on top of a rock where there's no utilities, no water access, no sewage access, uh, to this day, I don't know how they're going to get water to to this day. So, Everything that Senator King said, and we don't agree on everything, but he is totally right on this. There, there has to be a better way and a much more efficient way to, uh, to fix this shortage of of beds. Then what we're we're going now. The problem is
I was notified that I was notified about this about 54 or 5 months ago. This, they found out about this in 23. I chair pen and charitable corrections. Of all people, they should have notified, should have been me. And then I could have notified the people in my district and say, hey, let's have a town hall meeting, send the governor's staff up. Let's sit down and discuss this like we should do it. That never happened.
That was sprung on me a day before they purchased the land. That is not the way we do business and and and government is not the way we treat our constituents. And uh I have a, I have a big issue with this. A big issue with this because not only did we hire a guy and and I know I have a nephew that works in Blythe, California on the line in a huge prison. And Mr. Perfuri does not have the best reputation.
And that, in that state, and yet we hired him here and almost immediately the Board of Correction fires him, and the governor hires him as a consultant for her for $200,000. So if somebody can hear and here can explain that to me, I would like to hear it. And I would also like to know what his job description is and what he does to earn 250,000 a year. Thanks,
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:47:58
Senator Sheffield. That is exactly right. This is not being about a Nimby about Franklin County. I can tell you,
and I know we have a former JP here that wants to say a few words. It's down here. I appreciate him there, folks, this thing in our government was set up, our founding fathers set up that we're supposed to have a fair word or a fair fight. That never happened. The idea that you just call people up and say, guess what, you're getting a 3000 bed prison. It's good for you. You need to lock it. It's flat out wrong. It doesn't matter if it's in Pulaski County. It doesn't matter what county. in. This whole thing and this whole deal stinks. There's no way we could have Sebastian County, where I was told has
land that there for a possible jail expansion that they're not going to build. Why aren't we building it there? That's where most of the inmates are coming from. Why would Franklin County or any other county pass jail taxes, make sacrifices. And we sit there and most of the inmates almost
Speaker 279
1:48:53
1 out of every 4 inmates is coming from what Sebastian Washington and Benton County. So Mr. Porfiri makes almost a quarter of a million dollars a year with everything and we had this calico rock expansion that
he shut down that literally now is going to cost us we, you know, I've seen county clerks misappropriate the money and get berated in audit for
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:49:18
an hour and a half. This guy makes a 40 to $50 million mistake or decision that is horrible, that could have saved taxpayer money, alleviated bed space, much more quickly. in a facility that's fully staffed to now build it and cost taxpayers much more to build it somewhere else. Other questions from committee. See none,
uh, there's no one to testify for or against Senator King. Would
Cody Sosby
Unverified
1:49:44
you like to close for us? Well, I'd like Mr. Sowsby to a former JP to say a few words, the local person, did he come down here and say a few things and then, but I just want to, I appreciate you present it because this idea that we don't have other alternatives out there is flat
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:50:00
out wrong. So if Mr. Sowsby would like to say a few words, I'd appreciate some
time with him. If you will identify yourself
Cody Sowsby
Unverified
1:50:11
for the record. Thank you. My name is Cody Sowsby. I'm from Franklin County, Arkansas, Charleston, uh, the justice of the peace for Franklin County for the past 6 years, I believe. It only felt like 20, but it was a good learning experience for me. We struggle, uh, as any small county do uh does to help, uh, try to come up with uh uh Pay for our deputies, anybody that works in a courthouse, it's a struggle in
our county, um, this, this prison, if it goes through, it, it will decimate our, our sheriff's department. We've I don't blame these guys that are putting their life on the line. They can go make more money, provide for their family. I don't blame them for that, but we've had extensive talks with our sheriff and and uh they're totally against it, kind of to echo what Senator Stubblefield said. It was just a shock to me and us to find out about this and um without any of the public and, and aside from being a
justice of peace, my family's land borders that property for 1 mile and a half, so we're right on the fence, my deer stand tree is. to the barbed wire fence of the property. So we have a lot of invested interest in that and it's simply not anything that we want to keep a prison out of our backyard that is, but it is, it is going to drain us financially, and it's simple. I'm not a numbers guy like Senator King is. I'm not very smart. This is my first time to be down here. I didn't even know where to park, uh, didn't even sign up right, but I'm telling
you, I'm here to help my com my community and support the people that are that are. fighting against this, uh, they're doing their job and giving you all the facts and the numbers, and I just appreciate you uh to take that in consideration. I don't, uh, some of the, we're just a lot of information out there right now and I know y'all heard, probably heard these testimonies a lot about the prison, but it's, it's tough. It we were We were ramroded and it was shoved down our throats and still being shoved down our
throats with little, with little talk of little work from a little bit of direction from the board of Corrections, a little bit of talk from the governor's office, but uh they're, they're just mowing us over up there for lack of better terms. So I'd be willing to answer any questions. I don't have a lot to Thank you, Justice Soto.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
1:52:33
Any questions from the committee saying none. Thank you for your testy.
Speaker 51
1:52:36
I appreciate you for letting me talk. Thank you. Thank you, members for letting me present the bill. Bills. Are you Senator King, are you going to pull SB 143 down?
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
1:52:51
Yeah, we're just gonna wait and see what we have with the other boat and then we'll go from there after
that. So, I'm just saying that I either, you either had to close for the bill or pull
Speaker 51
1:53:04
it down. Yeah, I'll just pull it down for
right now. Thank you. He's only presenting one. technically. OK, uh, Senator Tucker. A center lighting in the room. No, Senator Tucker, go ahead.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:53:31
Senator Tucker, can you tell us what bill you're running? I'm gonna start with Centel 485, Mr. Chair. SB 485. which has an amendment. I. 6 and 7.
Senator Tucker, would you like to Uh Present
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:54:08
the amendment. Yes, Mr. Chair, the amendment is the bill. We were working on changes all day yesterday. In fact, we were working on
the final change even after this committee started this morning, so there was no way to get all of the amendments engrossed into the bill, and I didn't want to bring a complicated amendment that was hard to follow, so I did the thing where the amendment is the bill. And so it's all engrossed in
that sense at least, so it's, it's easy to follow what's what's in the bill.
So with, with that, the amendment is the bill, I move for adoption of the amendment
motion for adoption of the amendment second from Senator Stubblefield. Any discussion all for the motion signified by saying aye, all post motion carried SB 485
is amended. Senator Tucker, you're recognized to present SB 4485 as amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. With your permission, I'd like to
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:55:00
invite Estrella Lopez from the Council of State
Governor's Justice Center to sit here with me. You may Thank you, Mr. Chair, members. This is a bill that Senator Gilmore referenced when he was presenting
his, his excellent bill to reduce recidivism earlier. Senator Tucker, if you will allow your guests to identify herself for the record. Lopez with
Speaker 295
1:55:25
the Council of State Governments Justice Center. Thank you. OK, Senator Tucker,
sorry for interrupting. No, thank you, Mr. Chair. So this was the bill that Senator Gilmore referenced earlier when
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:55:37
he was running his excellent bill to reduce recidivism, and this is another bill that we believe will make a lot of Of reforms that will reduce recidivism in Arkansas. This bill comes out of work that was done by the task force established in the PTE Act as Senator Gilmore mentioned this morning, and we worked diligently for Senator Gilmore, who was the chair of the task force for the entire interim period, the task force had, you know, a prosecutor, public defender, folks from corrections, community corrections, judges,
crime victims a formerly incarcerated person and remember Post-rison transfer board, everyone that touches criminal justice, we all work collaboratively for a period of 18 months on the policy changes that we can make. That will help reduce recidivism in Arkansas, Ms. Lopez is going to give a brief overview of the changes in the bill and then I'll be glad to take questions. Thank you. Um, as
Speaker 297
1:56:33
I said, I'm with the Council of State Governments Justice Center, and we are a national nonpartisan
Speaker 298
1:56:40
nonprofit, and we've been working with Arkansas since 2023, specifically providing support to the legislative recidivism reduction task force that was created by the PRTECT Act. In addition to the work that Senator Tucker referenced Me and my colleagues had an opportunity to look at data from across the criminal justice agencies. We visited with different offices and facilities, and we had hundreds of conversations with stakeholders from all corners of the state representing all aspects of the criminal justice
system, and this bill is very much a reflection of the task force's work. Arkansas's prison population is high as of July of 2024, the state's prison population was higher. It's the highest than it's been in the last decade, and that's despite having experienced significant decreases during the pandemic. At the same time that the population is high, the recidivism rate is also high for people who left prison in the 2014 to 2016 cohort, half of those individuals would return
to DOC custody within 3 years. Arkansas relies heavily on community supervision. 59% of felonies resolved to probation and over 75% of the nearly 91,000 people that are under the DOC's control are in the community. Um, however, in speaking to community supervision officers, agents, supervisors, and individuals who are actually under supervision, it became clear that community supervision system is severely underresourced. There are high
caseloads, inconsistent uses of evidence-based best practices. and limited resources, which really constrain the effect that supervision officers are able to have this far too often ultimately results in the imposition of incarceration, which is a far more costly intervention. Through the task force's work, we found that from 2014 to 2023, on average, 72% of prison admissions were individuals who were under community supervision
Speaker 297
1:58:45
by the DOC and other either the form of probation or parole at
Speaker 298
1:58:50
the time that they were incarcerated. So the changes in this bill represent an opportunity to meaningfully improve supervision practices in order to reduce recidivism and increase public safety. The bill will ensure that valuable supervision resources are focused on high risk individuals and that the tools and practices that are being used in community supervision are ones that have evidence behind them to show that they actually work and will allow for
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
1:59:17
consistency across the system. Thank you. Thank you, Strea. I, I just want to add a couple things. One is that
we produced this bill. It was a bill again that we worked through with all the stakeholders over the entire interim. We filed the bill. I sent it to several of the stakeholders, AOC and the Judicial council, the public defenders, the prosecutors, the Department of Corrections, and so forth. Um, several of those stakeholders just gave a thumbs up. Got a couple of comments from the prosecutors. We've worked to
accommodate their concerns, and I would think it's fair to say they don't have a position, but they're, they're neutral. They're not opposed to anything that we're doing. They haven't taken a position to support, but they're neutral on the bill. Is that fair? And but we've accommodated their concerns in the bill and then the Department of Corrections brought us with a series of notes, many of which were technical in nature. A few were substantive. I think we accommodated 100% of the things the Department of Corrections asked for, so I'm not presently aware of any language in the bill that that anyone, any of the any of the
stakeholders in this area are actively opposing. The last thing I'll just say is that, you know, we know. Obviously that we have to address crime in Arkansas a big piece of that is recidivism. I mean, if someone commits a violent crime, they need to be incarcerated. We need to do what we can to make sure that once they are released, they don't come back. That's in everyone's best interest. It's in their best interest, but it's also in all of our best interests as well. If you reduce recidivism, then by definition you're reducing crime, so this, this is a bill to reduce crime. The last thing
that I'll mention is we also know we do have a, we have different philosophies about how to address it, but there's no getting around the fact that we have a capacity issue in Arkansas, and this data is 2 years old, but 2 years ago, 62% of prison admissions. Were people on supervision, either parole or probation, and if we just to use a round number, this would be an ambitious number, but if we could cut recidivism in half for those folks, then we reduce prison admissions in Arkansas by 31%. I mean that's, that's a huge, that would be a huge success for us, so as Senator
Gilmore said with his bill this morning, I don't think, you know, this bill's going to be a silver bullet to cure all recidivism and in Arkansas, but I think it accomplishes a number of very productive things. That will help us meaningfully reduce recidivism moving forward that I'm happy to take any questions. Any questions from
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:01:41
committee see none. There's no one to testify for or against. Would you like to close for your billent
Tucker, or are you closed? I think that was my closing,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:01:49
Mr. Chair. I'd appreciate a good vote and I'll make a motion to
pass. Motion to pass, 2nd from Centric as a second motion to pass as amended, second by Senator Gilmore. Any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying aye. All posed motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Tucker. You have passed
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:02:07
your bill is amended. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'll keep going if you'll have me, but I'll I'll do as you direct 575 is what I would
present next if it's 575. More controversial than 4. 485 was.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:02:26
Uh, I think it will require a bit of explanation. I don't think it's
controversial. Well, if it requires explanation, we're about done with explanation, so. Uh, but
The Center 5857575. which has an amendment. Now I don't seem to have. There it is. Center.
Tucker, would you like to explain your amendment on SB 575. I think
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:02:58
I think it's easy just to say my bill, my amendment. I'll explain it in the context, the greater context of the
bill, if y'all will give me that leeway, and I'm I move adoption motion to adopt but Senator Gilmore second by Cen Ds and discussion
hearing none, I the motion saying aye, all post your bill is amended. If you would like to present it, SB 575. uh Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:03:22
members. I think we all know that the fees in the justice system are in need of
reform in Arkansas, and it's, it's a very complicated process to try to reform those fees for a number of reasons. One is because there are so many of them, and, and secondly, it's hard to wrap your hands around what they all do, how much revenue they generate, what that revenue is spent on and so forth. This is an attempt at a step one of reforming fees. In terms of the fees that we do have, Public Enemy #1 and 2 that are in most need of reform in my view are the installment fee,
which has been the subject of a lot of discussion down here and then also the driver's license reinstatement fee because driver's licenses are suspended in Arkansas for a number of reasons. Now, if you get a DWI, it's justified, but there's a long list of reasons why a driver's license can be suspended. And if your driver's license is suspended, it makes it difficult for you to drive to work and maintain employment and pay off your fines and fees and become a productive member of society, so Um, the, the main point of
Senate Bill 575 is on those two fees alone, the driver's license reinstatement fee and the installment fee to make them general revenue rather than special revenue. This is an idea that I stole from the governor of Oklahoma, Governor Stitt. He, he made all of the special revenue fees in the justice system in Oklahoma. General revenue rather than special revenue, and this is the reason why. The driver's license reinstatement fee, for example. A good chunk of the revenue derived from the driver's
license reinstatement fee goes to the Arkansas State Police pension fund. I have no desire to cut funding whatsoever to the Arkansas State Police pension fund, but if I were to try to reform the driver's license reinstatement fee, then I'd have Colonel Haggar down here at the table testifying against the bill, and he and he should because it would hurt their revenue. And so what, what this is, this is designed to do in a way where we absolutely do not hurt the revenue of the Arkansas State Police pension fund or any other
entity that receives special revenue from either of these fees, so this, this is one piece of what I'm working to do, which is to take all of the special revenue for those two fees. Turn it into general revenue and then turn around and take the exact same amount of general revenue that they've been getting for the on average for the last 5 years for these fees and send it back to the same state agencies, so we would not be costing anybody $1 and a net zero cost to the state. The point of doing all of this
is that if in some future legislative session, which I think is likely either me or someone else if they want to reform the installment fee, for example, then there might be a hit to general revenue, but they don't have the administrative office of the courts down here testifying against the bill because you're hurting their special revenue. At that point, the legislature can make an independent decision about whether to to take a hit to general revenue by reforming the installment fee, and that's the only question the legislature is considering. The legis
is not also considering whether to cut revenue, special revenue to a dedicated source. So that's, that's what it does. Those are the two fees I did those two fees only because it's a, it's a large complicated issue, and those, as I said, are the are the public enemies #1 and 2 when it comes to fees in Arkansas and then it establishes a task force to study the remainder of the fees, so I know it's, I know it's complicated and for that reason it required a bit of explanation.
But to sum up, it doesn't actually affect, it's not going to affect the amount of revenue that any agency gets. It's just taking the special revenue, making it general, and then giving them the same amount of money out of general revenue, and we won't, we won't pass this bill if we don't make that happen, and I've been working with AOC. I've communicated with DFNA about the only two agencies really that this affects our AOC and DFNA, and I've communicated with both of them throughout. this process as well as the governor's office.
And you know we're still kind of fine tuning those dollar amounts that they get because we want to guarantee them the same level of funding that they've been getting on average over the last 5 years. If we don't come to a consensus on what those amounts are, I won't push this bill through the last stage of the legislative process, and one of the pieces of the amendment is to add Representative Dalby as the House sponsor, and we spoke on the phone last night. She has that same commitment. If we don't get everyone satisfied that we're not costing them any money. We will not pass this bill out of the
But given where we are in the session, I've got to get this bill out of committee today in order for it to have a chance to move forward. So that's, that's the ask is and I'm happy to explain further or take questions, but at the end of the day I'm asking to just take this first step, and if we don't reach consensus with everyone, then we won't pass it, but, but I think we're in a good spot now and hopefully we get to a perfect spot, but that's it. I'm happy to take questions. Citri Gilmore, you're the
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:08:44
Good. Any other questions from committee? Say none. There's no one to testify for or against. Senator Tucker, would
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:08:51
you like to close for your bill? I think that was my clothes. I appreciate
y'all's time and I make a motion to pass.
Motion to pass from as amended from Senator Tucker from Senator Gilmore, any discussion, hearing none, all for the motion signify
for saying aye, all opposed. Motion carried. Congratulations, Senator Tucker, you have passed your bill as
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:09:12
amended. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've got a
I've got a few more again, I don't want to push my luck, but one, because I told Senator Scott I would run her bill, Senate Bill 555, so I want to make sure I do that one. And then if there's others, I'll, I'll take my seat and come back at the end if there's time, but I want to make sure I run this Senate bill 555 for Senator Scott. Senate Bill 555.
Tucker, you are recognized to present Senator Scott's SB 555. Thank
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:09:53
you, Mr. Chair. This is a bill. You know, as technology has evolved, opportunities for voyeurism. have grown and this
bill The law needs to evolve to address the growing threat of voyeurism, and so this bill really does 3 things. The first is that it extends the statute of limitations for the prosecution of a crime of voyeurism because many times you
may have been recorded without your knowledge. And so this requires the claim to be brought within one year after you have discovered the fact that you were videoed or whatever the case might be without your knowledge or when within a year of when you should have reasonably discovered that you were the victim of voyeurism. The second thing it does is it allows victims of warriorism to obtain an order of protection, and then it just, as I mentioned, it extends, it closes loopholes on
the different ways that people can be a victim of warriorism, so that's largely what the bill does, I think it goes without explanation what a, you know, horrifying crime this can be if you're you know, The subject of a video without your knowledge in a way that you do not want to be videoed. It could affect you for the rest of your life, your mental health, your relationships, your reputation, and I think the law needs to be updated to account for that. This happened to a constituent of Senator Scott's
who who we all know, and I think it's, I think it's an important
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:11:32
bill for us to pass. I'll be glad to take
any questions. Central Ro, you recognize Thank you, Senator Tucker. Uh, section 2. The city is not a defense of prosecution under this section that a person who violates subsection A or B, this section was in a romantic relationship with the other person who was secretly observed viewed photograph, filmed or videotape.
We we've talked many times this committee about our relationships change and vindictiveness happens and I'm going to get back at you. How, how do you keep that from happening in this case.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:12:07
Well, I think the, the key word, you know, I'm trying to be delicate, but I think we know that some of these videos can be taken in intimate situations, right? And and even if and those situations may be Consensual
But not, but the video part may not be consensual, right? And so that's what this is really seeking to address, and the key word in that new language that's being added in Section 2 is secretly, uh, because if that if secretly we're not in there, then it would just read it's not a defense that you were in a romantic relationship with someone who observed, you know, or videoed you and then I think that we would have the concern that you're raising. Well, what if that was done
and and then things change and now we, I want to be vindictive and prosecute you, but that word secretly is what accommodates for that. If you're, if you're doing that secretly without the other person's knowledge, that's when it's not permissible. Yeah,
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
2:13:10
well, and I think In this committee over the years we have relied
on a prosecutors to use their discretion and, and have had confidence in that. Mine's been shaking a little bit today,
but uh I still have confidence in a prosecutors will be able to do that, but I think there are cases that Probably have been consensual and then Turned otherwise and you really couldn't prove it wasn't consensual, so I'd
Speaker 83
2:13:40
have that concern, but hopefully they'll they'll take that in mind. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Rice. The uh Senator Johnson, you recognize. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:13:57
OK. On page 2. 8 through 10. Or should reasonably have been discovered, OK, the discovery is a check off a point in time. They got one year. How do you make that check mark. Should reasonably have been discovered. I mean, it, it. I mean, you've got a timeline of
one year. And that allows a whole different timeline whenever it's based on an assumption, and that's what that, that's what that language is
Speaker 312
2:14:37
to me should have. Reasonably we've been discovered, so that language,
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:14:43
I'm sorry, are you finished. So that language should reasonably have been discovered. That's a trick that a language trick that lawyers use in order to give some in
order to make something objective, right,
because without that language, let's say I'm the victim, right? And then someone is like, hey, Clark, I got to show you something. I got to show you something, and I, I will, I'm willfully ignorant. I ignore them on purpose just so I can To my own statute of limitations, and that's so then it's subjective only. It's only when it's in my brain that I was a victim that triggers the one year limit of statute to limit the one year period of statute of limitations. When you put in should reasonably have
discovered that takes it away from being a subjective measure, and it makes it an objective measure, and so it's not just Clark Tucker individually, it's any reasonable human. And so when you know, John Doe comes up to And they say, hey Clark, there's something I need, I need you to know about. If I say I think I know what that is, but I don't want you to
tell me then that's what triggers the one year period of statute of limitations. It makes its objective rather than just subjective. I don't know if that was an
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:16:01
answer or more legal talk because I don't know what reasonably should have where that year starts. I don't know how y'all do that stuff in court, but Can one of you one of you
Daniel Shue
Unverified
2:16:37
Daniel Sho on the elected prosecuting attorney for Sebastian County 12th Judicial District, and I'm president of the Arkansas Prosecuting Attorneys Association, taking your question with his factual scenario there, you should have known. At the moment that say, hey, I've got this video of whatever, you should have known, so the year starts ticking because you choose not to look at it. That that doesn't extend it beyond that year. So when you
Speaker 303
2:17:10
knew or should have known the clock is ticking. You've got one year. There's still
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:17:16
an event, Senator Johnson, um, to your original point. And the event is the same whether whether I allowed it to enter my brain or
not. Either I knew because someone showed me they're like, hey, I need to show you this video. So that means either I knew and the clock starts ticking, or I turn a blind eye and look the other way. There's still a triggering event that starts the one year period, and it triggers it
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
2:17:41
whether I look at it or whether I turn a blind eye. Who's who is the determination, who is that? Is that a judge,
Daniel Shue
Unverified
2:17:51
a jury who determines when that clock ultimately ultimately answering that question, it's presumed. To be timely, but defense will file a motion and they'll move to dismiss and say that this violates statute of limitations and judge will make a ruling on, hey, that was either reasonable or unreasonable that you should
have known, and that will be the timeline for that year to start running. So a judge makes that determination whether you knew or you should have known if that makes sense. A
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:18:24
judge will determine when the statute of limitations began to run, and it's only as Mr. Xu said, if it becomes an issue in the case raised by by a defense.
Speaker 167
2:18:34
Lord help. OK. Other questions from committee.
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
2:18:44
Hearing none, there's no one to testify for or against Senator Tucker. Would you like to close for your bill. I'm closed. I appreciate it. Thank
you, members, and I move to pass. pass from Senator Tucker did I hear a second from Senator Gilmore. Any discussion? Hearing none, all for the motion signified by saying a, all opposed.
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
2:19:07
Congratulations, Senator Tucker, you passed your bill. Jane, yes.
Well, he owns it now. The, uh, committee, it is 12:20. We have to be in the Senate
at 1. We're going to have to return here after we quit at assume will be 5 o'clock in the Senate. Uh, I am going to suggest that we go to lunch, uh, so that you're more energized and better prepared for the afternoon.
Uh, and that this afternoon we do not hear any House bills that we stay as long as we need to and let me say again for the record, we do not have a long agenda because we did not run every bill every week, but because uh folks decided not to run their bills till now, or they fouled them late, but we will do our best to handle them this afternoon. Does is that? Yeah.
But you're gonna be here this afternoon, are you not?
me Yes, I am going to insist that you're
here this afternoon. What I'm sorry. Yes, OK, we're going to, we are going to recess. Uh, for lunch and the Senate, and then we will meet again here
in this room at 15 minutes upon adjournment of the Senate session this afternoon. We are recessed.
Agenda
REGULAR AGENDA
Call To Order
SB320 Irvin TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS JUVENILE CODE OF 1989
HB1624 Gazaway TO AMEND THE ARKANSAS LAW CONCERNING THE MEMBERSHIP OF COUNTYLAW LIBRARY BOARDS.
SB5 B. King TO ADD THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF PRESCRIPTION DRUG HARM OR HOMICIDE.
SB6 B. King TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF VACCINE HARM.
SB441 Hester TO CREATE THE JUNK LAWSUIT PREVENTION ACT OF 2025.
SB452 B. King CONCERNING CERTAIN CONTRACTS FOR MAINTENANCE OR RECYCLING OF WIND TURBINES UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
SB458 G. Leding TO REQUIRE A COURT TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF FACTORS SUCH AS TRAUMA AND INVOLVEMENT WITH THE CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM ON A PERSON WHO COMMITTED A CRIME AS A MINOR DURING A TRANSFER OR SENTENCING HEARING.
SB461 J. Scott TO COLLECT DATA REGARDING THE USE OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT IN 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. Stubblefield TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES.
SB485 C. Tucker TO REDUCE RECIDIVISM; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE SUSPENDED IMPOSITION OF A SENTENCE, PROBATION, PAROLE, AND POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION.
SB488 Irvin TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WHEN A JUVENILE IS CONSIDERED TO BE ADJUDICATED DELINQUENT.
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.
SB472 J. Bryant TO CREATE THE VIOLATION OF PURCHASE OR POSSESSION OF AN E-LIQUID PRODUCT OR VAPOR PRODUCT BY A MINOR.
HB1641 Clowney TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING HARASSMENT; AND TO INCLUDE THE USE OF A TRACKING DEVICE IN THE OFFENSE OF HARASSMENT.
SB501 J. Scott TO CREATE THE TENANT POSSESSIONS RECOVERY ACT; AND TO REQUIRE A LANDLORD TO PROVIDE CERTAIN NOTICE TO A TENANT WHEN A COURT HAS ISSUED A WRIT OF POSSESSION.
SB509 G. Stubblefield TO CREATE THE OFFENSE OF THEFT OF EQUIPMENT RENTAL SERVICES.
SB548 G. Leding TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING WARRANTS OF ARREST; AND TO REQUIRE 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.
HB1630 Gazaway TO ADD A MISDEMEANOR CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE OFFENSE TO THE PREDICATE OFFENSES FOR CAPITAL MURDER, MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE, AND MANSLAUGHTER.
SB555 J. Scott TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF VIDEO VOYEURISM; TO EXTEND THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR THE OFFENSE OF VIDEO VOYEURISM; AND TO MAKE AN ORDER OF PROTECTION AVAILABLE TO A VICTIM OF VIDEO VOYEURISM.
SB566 B. King PROVIDE FOR FUNDING FOR THE EXPANSION, IMPROVEMENT, OR CONSTRUCTION OF STATE AND COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES; AND TO ADDRESS PRISON OVERCROWDING.
SB575 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING INSTALLMENT FEES COLLECTED IN CIRCUIT AND DISTRICT COURTS; AND TO CREATE THE JUSTICE SYSTEM FEE TASK FORCE.
SB581 B. King TO CREATE THE POULTRY INTEGRATORS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES AND TAXPAYER PROTECTION ACT.
SB583 C. Tucker TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE COST LISTS RELATING TO PHARMACY SERVICES.
SB590 Gilmore TO CREATE THE RECIDIVISM REDUCTION SYSTEM WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY.
SB595 G. Leding TO PROVIDE FOR A MINOR'S RIGHT TO CONSULT WITH HIS OR HER PARENT OR GUARDIAN BEFORE A CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION.
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.
HB1662 B. McKenzie TO PROHIBIT LOBBYING FOR A COVERED FOREIGN ENTITY.
HB1729 R. Burkes TO AMEND THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION ACT; AND TO PROVIDE THAT A HOMESTEAD OWNED BY A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
HB1749 M. Brown TO ADOPT THE UNIFORM TRUST DECANTING ACT.
HB1777 Gazaway TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD; AND TO INCLUDE BRIBING OR ATTEMPTING TO BRIBE A CHILD IN THE OFFENSE OF SEXUALLY GROOMING A CHILD.
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.
HB1799 Vaught TO AMEND THE PERMISSIBLE METHODS OF REPORTING UNDER THE CHILD MALTREATMENT ACT.
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.
HB1835 Dalby CONCERNING SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS; AND TO UPDATE AND CLARIFY THE LAW CONCERNING DRUG COURT, MENTAL HEALTH COURT, VETERANS COURT, AND DWI/BWI SPECIALTY COURT PROGRAMS.
HB1838 Dalby TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING PROBATE ACTIONS; AND TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING ADOPTION AND GUARDIANSHIP.
HB1839 Dalby TO AMEND THE PROCEDURES FOR THE DECLARATION OF LEGAL DEATH OF A MISSING PERSON.
HB1844 Tosh TO AMEND THE LAW CONCERNING THE OFFENSE OF FLEEING BY MEANS OF A VEHICLE OR CONVEYANCE; AND TO INCREASE THE PENALTY FOR A PERSON WHO JUMPS FROM A MOVING VEHICLE OR CONVEYANCE WHILE FLEEING.
HB1848 Hudson TO AMEND THE LAW REGARDING THE PRESUMPTION THAT AN AWARD OF JOINT CUSTODY BETWEEN PARENTS IS IN A CHILD'S BEST INTEREST WHENTHERE IS DOMESTIC ABUSE.
SB597 B. Johnson TO CREATE THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF THREAT OF HARM UPON A FINANCIALINSTITUTION EMPLOYEE.
SB599 C. Tucker TO ELIMINATE INTERLOCUTORY DECREES OF ADOPTION; AND TO AMEND THE REVISED UNIFORM ADOPTION ACT.
SB600 C. Tucker TO REGULATE CONTRACTS; TO MANDATE CONTRACTUAL PROVISIONS FOR CERTAIN CONTRACTS; AND TO CLARIFY PROPER JURISDICTION FOR CERTAIN CONTACTS.DEFERRED BILLS
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-TOHOME 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.
HB1717 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS CHILDREN AND TEENS' ONLINE PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT.
HB1726 Gramlich TO CREATE THE ARKANSAS KIDS ONLINE SAFETY ACT.
SB356 J. Bryant TO ALLOW DISCLOSURE TO A JUDGE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE ARKANSAS CRIME INFORMATION CENTER BY THE OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT OR CRIME VICTIMS REPARATIONS BOARD.
Adjourn
Documents
| Title | Type | Pages | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Agenda — JUDICIARY COMMITTEE - SENATE AND HOUSE, Apr 2, 2025 | Agenda | 4 | Official source ↗ |
Speakers
Senator Alan Clark Chair
Unverified
Senator Terry Rice
Unverified
Senator Clarke Tucker
Unverified
Speaker 21
Speaker 24
Speaker 46
Senator Tyler Dees Chair
Unverified
Speaker 49
Senator Ben Gilmore
Unverified
Senator Gary Stubblefield
Unverified
Senator Steve Crowell
Unverified
Speaker 83
Speaker 86
Speaker 51
Speaker 97
Speaker 105
Speaker 111
Representative Matthew J. Shepherd
Unverified
Speaker 103
Speaker 126
Chair
Unverified
Cole Wakefield
Unverified
Speaker 133
Speaker 124
Speaker 116
Speaker 143
Speaker 142
Senator Matt McKee
Unverified
Speaker 159
Speaker 161
Speaker 164
Speaker 165
Speaker 171
Speaker 172
Speaker 176
Speaker 178
Speaker 186
Speaker 198
Speaker 201
Speaker 185
Speaker 224
Speaker 168
Speaker 232
Speaker 242
Speaker 245
Speaker 252
Senator Missy Irvin
Unverified
Speaker 260
Speaker 261
Speaker 270
Senator Bryan King
Unverified
Cody Sosby
Unverified
Speaker 279
Speaker 284
Cody Sowsby
Unverified
Speaker 295
Speaker 297
Speaker 298
Senator Mark Johnson
Unverified
Speaker 312
Speaker 316
Daniel Shue
Unverified
Speaker 303
Speaker 167